At the end of last year, the UCI announced it would be making changes to the number of women able to compete in the final of a downhill World Cup, as well as announcing a separate category for junior women and a cut to the number of junior men able to compete.
In order to better protect the integrity of the course and therefore improve the quality of competition, the UCI Management Committee agreed the following changes for the downhill events of the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup presented by Shimano:
• To reduce the number of riders by increasing the number of points required to participate (from 30 to 40 points);
• To reduce the number of riders participating in the final (15 Women Elite and 20 Juniors);
• To have a separate DHI Women Junior event.
Once the changes were announced following the meeting a lot of people reacted in what could be said a reasonable way based on the information, but are these changes really as bad as they seem, especially when it comes to the women’s field? We spoke to a number of female athletes, team managers and the UCI to find out their thoughts, and got a bit more information on the changes.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
The first point, more so that you are aware, all DHI rule changes only come at the request of, and only after extensive consultation with, the teams (mainly Elite teams, but also some representatives of standard UCI Teams). I would never consider a rule change for DHI in isolation. In recent years I’ve tried to give more ‘ownership’ to the teams so they feel more inclusive with us and they are now a big part of the decision making process. Dan Brown is the team rep invited to the UCI MTB Commission meetings and he is very good at gathering opinion and feeding back the demands and wishes of the teams, but we also meet as a group of UCI Team managers 2-3 times a season to give them a forum to discuss.
At all times Red Bull Media House (RBMH) are in those meetings too so the teams understand why and how they (RBMH) can better represent the sport through the programmes, this is important as it is such huge part of their media coverage. So no changes have been made unless requested by the teams.
At a popular European DHI venue (Ft William, Leogang) we get entries of around 150-160 Men Elite and around 30-34 Women Elite. Out of Europe (Cairns, Mt St Anne) we get around 100-120 Men & 20-22 Women Elite. Currently we have been qualifying 80 ME and 20 WE so the percentage of women qualifying from the entered riders has been higher than the men, so not equal and favouring the women. Qualification is a competition and I think it should remain that way and that a certain standard is required to achieve the Finals and I do think that creating a slightly harder quali will push riders to improve their ability in an effort to qualify.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
Out of Europe virtually all women entered have qualified and here, as is also the case in Europe, the range of ability is huge. By reducing to 15 (only 5 riders less) we are reducing the riders in the Final who are significantly slower to the point where they are sometimes being caught by the rider behind them, and not having riders in the Final whose ability level is significantly slower than the leading riders.
Regarding the men’s qualification I personally was pushing for a reduction to 60 in the Finals but the overwhelming feedback from the teams was to leave it at 80 due to the much tighter level of ability; one small mistake in the men’s race that costs a couple of seconds is crucial, in the women’s race the gaps are larger so don’t impact position as much.
We have increased the points required to enter a WC over 2 years (20 points in 2015, 30 points in 2016, 40 points in 2017) to slightly reduce the total number of riders entering as we have had issues with high total numbers impacting on uplift times, training availability (too many riders on the course during training at one time which doesn’t give effective training opportunities for the riders and so many riders does have an effect on the course itself), but also to try to encourage riders who want to compete in a WC to race other events on the calendar to gain the points they need. DHI has a strong WC but a weak base so a ‘qualification’ for WC by using more smaller events gives the riders more race experience & on a variety of courses.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
We have given the Junior Women what I felt was better equality with their male counterparts by giving them their own race, not just putting them in the WE race. The numbers of WJ are very low, usually between 3-7 riders. They will all qualify so while the Junior Men have a qualification run the WJ will have a seeding run, in place of timed training, so they still get an opportunity to have a run under race conditions in seeding, which adds to their experience. They will start immediately before the Junior Men in the morning.
By running the Junior Women with the Elite the numbers have stayed very low in recent years; I’m definitely of the opinion that trying something to see how it works is worthwhile; if there is no change or it is not well received in general after it has run for a couple of seasons then we can change it back, but right now the numbers are static so lets see if their own race helps.
(As a side comment, the only experience I have with something similar was when we split out the U23 Women from the Elite in XCO; once they had their own race the field size grew significantly. I appreciate DHI is a different discipline, but it’s worth considering).
Finally, RBMH are changing their programme format to give the women more of their own show (with a pre-show dedicated to them), rather than a pre-show about the men right before they switch to showing the women race. This will give the women a better showcase and do more for developing the personalities in their event, and the Final reduced to 15 riders will give those riders more programme time. This is important when considering your point about women’s sponsorship; I think a showcase for the top women can only inspire and motivate the next generation, it is programming like this with features as well as race run coverage that gives sponsors better exposure and value for money, and is more likely to increase sponsorship. RBMH want to create ‘stars’ and those will then hopefully transfer to other media outlets.
As someone who was selected to be team representative at the UCI MTB commission meetings, how do you feel about the changes, having discussed them all with the teams, the UCI and RBMH?
The changes the UCI have put forward are welcomed by the teams. As you can imagine with 15 Elite teams and another 3 or 4 other “influencers” at the table we have a lot of opinions to consider. That’s the hardest part of my position, I have to try to stay neutral and to convey the general feeling, the consensus of opinion to the UCI Commission.
The changes put forward are pretty subtle and a long way from some of the larger reforms we’ve looked at over the past few seasons. Without a title sponsor and further finances the World Cup’s potential will remain limited. I’m not saying that it isn’t a good product, as it stands it’s a very good product, but it would certainly benefit from a sponsor that would enable us to increase the number of rounds and increase the pathetic prize money. We need to ensure that the World Cup is the absolute pinnacle of the sport. Increasing the points required to enter the Series enables the UCI to make sure that the level of riding at World Cups is where it needs to be. Obviously this needs to be followed up with a more defined path to the top tier; I’d like to see the UCI focus on developing another level of international events such as the iXS Cup to support and feed into the World Cup.
With regards to the women’s numbers in the finals, that’s a tough call but when you look at finishing times in comparison to the men’s race it just needed tightening up to keep the racing closer for the finals. Junior women getting their own race category is great and follows on from the successful Junior men’s category introduced a few years back, I hope it will bring an increased focus to the category.
Do you think we’ll see a big change given the fact this may actually help push the women’s side of things thanks to increased coverage from Red Bull and closer competition due to the reduction in numbers?
Yeah, I actually think we’ll see riders pushing more to make those top 15 spots, That can only help contribute to faster development of riders. The top ten saw a lot of new additions last season and I think making it harder to get into the main event will push this group even more.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
I don’t see any change here at all, the majority of riders who play outside the top ten and some even within it are privateers with little backing. It’s sad but some sponsors fail to see the return on investment for women riders outside the top ten. The racing needs to get tighter and the placings mixed up more so we see new faces on the live coverage. I have no doubt this will happen in the next few years and when it does we can easily go back to 20 or more in the Finals to reflect the quality of the field.
As mentioned above we need to get a tiered system in place to allow for a clearer path. The iXS Cup holds a European Series on World Cup level courses so it’s is the perfect stepping stone.
As a team manager, do you see this change affecting how the companies you work with make sponsorship decisions?
For our own team not in any way. On a wider level reducing numbers will hopefully increase competition and develop the riders at a quicker rate so producing more riders able to mix it up come the Finals. That’s when potential sponsors are going to take notice!
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
I’d like to know who suggested it! I don’t see how it’ll make a difference to anything from the race organisation perspective at all, and only disadvantages the quarter of the women’s final who will not be able to compete in finals. Until now 80 men and 20 women compete in finals, so ¼ of the men’s field race. Why do you need to reduce the women’s field any further when the men’s field remains the same? It just makes us feel unwelcome.
The reasoning behind it doesn’t make sense to me; ‘to protect the integrity of the course and therefore the competition’. Cutting out ¼ of the women’s field on race day (5 less riders on track) saves around 2 ½ minutes of racing in the current schedule and in the grand scheme won’t affect the conditions of the track. I think the integrity of the course is a different issue altogether that needs addressing. DH is an outdoor sport where the track is greatly affected by the weather, as well as continued, heavy use over the race weekend. Proper track preparation well in advance of the event, rather than the week leading up to a race or even during a race weekend, and a bigger maintenance team to keep on top of the track during a World Cup weekend would go a lot further to helping save the integrity of the course than reducing the number of female riders further.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
If it looks as though it is going to be detrimental to women’s downhill in any way at all then it should be reversed. As far as I’m aware the UCI claim to strive for equality, as most sports do these days, so I don’t see why they would stick to a change if it creates more imbalance within DH. The change that I see having a big positive impact on women’s downhill is the introduction of a Junior women’s category. Since there has been a Junior category at Nationals in the UK the numbers of girls entering have shot up, which is really encouraging to see. The number of juniors can outnumber the elite women at some races. Which also makes me wonder where these girls will go, if the number of Junior girls competing increases but the number of Elites allowed to race is reduced, where will the girls go when they move up into Elite? Will they be discouraged from aiming for the highest level of racing? Or move onto different disciplines?
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
Hopefully grassroots development will grow, and I would say it already is growing. Junior girls coming through will benefit from the experience of having their own competitive category, and I would hope more recognition from the media and support from sponsors/teams to help them race. In terms of elite level sponsorship, as far as I know, support drops off pretty quickly anyway for women who are outside of the top ten, or even in the higher numbers of the top ten. As in the men’s field, a lot of the competitive field will be made up of privateers who are making the best of the set up and support they have outside of a World Cup team, but I imagine the five women who used to qualify and who now may not make the final will probably find it harder to drum up the same support they may have had previously to help them to get to a World Cup event.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
From racing as a Youth/Junior up until now, having the support to train and get to races, along with the belief from people around me has really helped me progress through the Elite ranks to where I am today. I think if more sponsors, teams, and media can continue to get behind Junior and Elite women’s racing, see the value in it to make us feel welcome and allow us the presence we need to compete at World Cups, then things will go in the right direction.
Reading through all the changes it’s easy to see each one in a different light, and from different people’s viewpoint depending what their values are. Some changes are positive and some I would say not. It’s also worth looking at who it is making the decision. The elite teams were the ones who have come up with and voted for changes over the year and it’s worth looking at the balance of the riders involved. Around 4/5 of the riders in Elite teams are the Elite men, and the changes do look to be made with the elite men in mind. It looks like the Elite Men get double practice on race day with morning practice and then another practice session before the Elite women race. Elite Women, however, will race later than the current schedule (now after the Elite men’s second practice) but will still only have practice first thing in the morning, so we will be racing on a track that will have had even more chance to change throughout the day, and is likely to be very different to the track we practiced on that morning. I’m sure it’s very difficult to fit everyone into the World Cup schedule, and that compromises need to be made. But I can’t help but feel like the Elite women get the worse side of the deal here.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
From a viewer’s point of view, you want to see fast, furious and close racing. I am afraid to say that outside the top ten, most of the women struggle on a downhill course, just look at the times. This is not something the public want to see. People will get bored watching someone, anyone, taking five minutes to struggle down a three-minute track – they also get bored with a rider winning by ten seconds all the time. I am not saying what the UCI have got it right but things needed to change. If the women had been putting in better times and the racing was closer, the UCI would not have cut the numbers. Before we can get more women in the finals, we need to encourage more girls into racing and, I think that the junior series will be a great help.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
No, in 2012 (Tahnée’s first year as a junior) we went racing knowing she was good enough and fast enough to qualify at a World Cup. She had cut her teeth in the amazing iXS series and proved she was fast. We would not have travelled 2,000 miles for her to race if she was not good enough to race. Not only that, we needed to know she would be safe out there… it’s dangerous! The number qualifying will have a positive effect – as I have said above – we ALL want to see more girls racing by that, I mean RACING, not just taking part (if they want to do that, they can ride enduro, haha). As soon as the girls start closing the time gap, the better it will be for everyone.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
It’s a good thing. In 2013, I took a gamble on a young Mike Jones and I did this because of the junior series. If Mike did okay, he would get more time on the bike at World Cups enhancing his progression as a rider – plus, there was more coverage for the team and our sponsors. With the right support and structure, it turned out the kid was quite fast 😉
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
It’s a good thing. I think the Junior men’s category has helped young riders progress – only a few years ago, a handful would take part up until Saturday but not make the Top 80 finals on Sunday. With privateers leaving the race weekend pissed off, spending loads of cash, traveling miles and not making it through – that is not encouraging to any young athlete. In 2016 the UCI had 30 juniors racing Sunday – it is great for them and I am gutted their numbers have been reduced to 20.
In fact, we have way more juniors turning up to a World Cup than ever before. It is much more difficult for them now as there are so many riders – the competition is harder, much harder. This is giving us some amazingly fast, competitive riders. Great racing that is worth watching. I hope the junior series for the girls will have the same impact – however, I seriously worry about the quality of riders on the track as it will become dangerous for others.
In the 2016 season, we (Transition Factory/FMD Racing) had Tahnée injured at a BDS race because of a slower rider. This meant that she was not able to race Fort William World Cup and struggled to get through the race in Leogang. The UCI needs to look into this at World Cups and make sure that the safety of the best riders in the world is not put into jeopardy by inferior riders. The gap in speed and skill between say Rachel Atherton and a top junior is huge and they will be on track training at the same time!
I personally think there should be three training sessions – or maybe even start one day earlier and have the juniors race on Saturday.
1) Top 60 men & Top 10 Junior Men (70 riders)
2) 60-100 Men, Top 10 women, Junior Men 10-30 (70 riders)
3) The rest
Although this will not keep the course from deteriorating.
As a team manager, do you see this change affecting how the companies you work with make sponsorship decisions?
Not at all – Junior women can gain team points, this will be great for some teams. In the past, I think the role models of this sport have not been the most enticing. We are now at a time and are lucky that over the years more women across the globe have embraced all sports including the tough, physical ones.
Downhill MTB has some amazing female role models in Rachel, Manon, Tahnée, Myriam, Tracey and more… showing the world you can still be a woman whilst competing in one of the toughest sports in the world. Plus, if the junior girls are more competitive, it will create riders that teams WANT on their team.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
I think it is a shame they are cutting the numbers down for the finals as I have a feeling this will effect the amount of women who now enter for the World Cups, to be honest, I’m not sure it will effect the support of the top riders massively but it may affect the riders coming up through the ranks and those trying to get into the sport for the first time as this will obviously make it harder to qualify.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
To be honest I think as a female riders it is a lot easier to pick up points than it is for the guys so I’m not sure this will change things on a big scale. Although our British downhill series doesn’t offer UCI points anymore, plenty of other international races do, and these will set riders up for a good idea of the level and experience needed for World Cup races anyway rather than just jumping straight into the deep end at a World Cup. I think increasing the number of points needed to enter the World Cups could also lead to closer times for the final race as it will bring more experience to each round for the riders.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
This is where I think we will see numbers decreasing per round which I think over time will have an effect on sponsorships especially for developing riders coming through the ranks. Sponsorship is hard enough for elite level women, I feel the focus for most teams is on the junior or elite men so if the entries decrease I feel this may affect this even more.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
I’m not sure if it will change things or not but my feeling is it will have an effect mainly on the rounds that are more costly to travel to but I believe if you want something, there’s nothing to stop you achieving it; you just have to work hard to get there, so the riders that want to get the results will push hard at races. Maybe this will benefit the women’s side of the sport by bringing the results closer together?
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
Well, I’m sure the UCI has their reason for this and it must make sense in some way. Cutting from 20 to 15 is nothing but fair if you compare the numbers of the men: roughly 200 men at the race, 80 of them qualify (40%) versus roughly 30 women at the race, 15 of them qualify (50%). So, looking at this number, women get treated quite well. Where it gets a bit more tricky is if you combine this new rule of cutting down to 15 with the number of protected women: It means 10 out of 15 riders are set for the finals, and only 5 spots are up for grabs. I personally think this is absolutely wrong. But I’m very skeptical about protection anyways, also in the men’s field.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
I think it won’t have any effect at all. But I’m aware of the fact that this comes from a man’s point of view and I can’t really say how it feels for a woman coming to a World Cup. As a young rider, you’ll have to beat 60% of the field, make it into the top 80, who most of them are sponsored by a team. If you don’t make it in there, your chances of getting on a World Cup team are quite small. So, you’ll just have to keep trying. If those 80 were suddenly cut down to 60, it wouldn’t change a thing.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
There are big World Cup teams who have to focus on results and media exposure, who will always have to focus on those riders that they believe have the potential in being on TV and/or the podium.
And there are the grassroots teams who will support riders on a national level, maybe taking them to a World Cup here and there. The World Cup teams will get that exposure from the top ten men, and from the top five women. This rule change has no effect at all regarding sponsorship. The grassroots teams won’t get that coverage at all, unless one of their riders has a fantastic day and ends up in the top five. So, again, this rule change has no effect regarding sponsorship.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
The rules have been tweaked several times already in order to promote women in downhill. With no effect. People come to the World Cup because they love our sport. And those who love it enough, will make it! There will always be different backgrounds, it will always be harder for some people than for others to get to a World Cup. It is a lot harder to get to the World Cups if you’re from South America than it is if you’re from Europe. It is a lot harder to get to a World Cup if you come from a poor family than it is if you’re rich. As much as we’d love for everyone to have equal chances, the reality is that it is a lot more complicated for some riders than for others. No matter if you’re a woman or a man.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
I am not opposed to this ruling at all. We’ve seen some events where women are crashing, flatting or getting other major mechanicals and still making the top 20. We’re all racing and we all like competition so let’s make it more competitive. One of the beautiful parts about downhill racing is the search for perfection in your race run. Qualifying is also a race.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
I believe we can make it into a positive. I hope that it will eventually cause National series to grow and in turn become more competitive. I believe that racing a World Cup is something that must be reserved for a certain level of rider. I realize that sounds like an elitist point of view, but I most certainly raced World Cups before I was ready. Sometimes I didn’t qualify, sometimes I qualified but really shouldn’t have and sometimes I got hurt. It would have been much better if I’d had a competitive series in Canada I could have focused on.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
If there is a smaller number of women racing and getting increased viewing time, photos published etc I can hope that the sponsorship level will grow for those who are in the top ten, in return causing the series to become more competitive and exciting. Mind you, I’m not saying those outside the top ten shouldn’t have any support.
I don’t think this will decrease the number of women competing. Perhaps for a few years at the World Cup level- but this shouldn’t have any effect on the number of women who begin to compete.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
I have never raced a full World Cup season, nor been on a UCI team so perhaps I’m not as savvy on the politics of it all. I am not writing from any ranked position either. I will have to work incredibly hard to qualify for every round, and I plan on working even harder to reach a podium position.
Any final thoughts?
Let’s work hard and earn something. Let’s try again and let’s learn sacrifice.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
I think this is a good thing personally and this is something we have discussed in our team managers meetings as a lot of time the in between 15 and 20 riders in the world cup elite women are quite far in terms of time and in the percentage of time close to the win. On another hand, there are more fast girls now so I think it goes in a good direction to make sure the new fast girls, that are not only five now, are secured and can be racing on Sunday. And also this reduces the girls that might not be ready for World Cups yet. I think overall it’s good, the number of girls should a bit similar racing but it should be just better girls racing in the final.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
I don’t think those points will be negative for the women racing for qualifying as there will be a junior category. I think this is something for me really that is key and it will hopefully encourage more young girls to come and try and have a chance to race rather than have those young girls really try to make it to the top 20 before and have themselves disappointed because they are not qualified and can’t ride. Overall, by placing the junior girls into their own category, I think we will see more girls on the race circuit. I think definitely making a change between the junior and elite category will be better for the girls racing.
On the other hand, I think the increasing points is not good for the sport as there are less and less races that give points to be qualified for World Cups and this is not really representative worldwide too as the points are evenly distributed on national series, either if it’s English or French nationality or either if it’s like a lower profile country of racing. That means if you are in a country with a lot of strong girls, it will be hard to qualify even if you are fast. If you are in a country with no girls racing and you are the only one and you will easily have the points even if your level is not that high. We have discussed that internally with the teams and we have proposed and asked to the UCI to put a differentiation between the strong countries of racing and the less strong country of racing to make it more even and it seems they haven’t put it in place and that is something not only negative for girls but even more negative for boys as it will be super hard to get the points.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
These changes will be positive on the grassroots development because maybe some teams will get some junior girls, maybe some national teams will get some junior girls too and bring them more to the World Cups because they now have their own category. Overall, I think it will good for the young girls. On another hand it will just make life difficult for the women from strong countries like UK and France to be able to go to World Cups and I think it will have an effect on let’s say, national level sponsorship but I think if the UCI do a little change with the rules of points and try to give more points to the strong countries that would be a global positive move.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
For me as my personal experience with my team, I don’t see any changes as Tracey is number two in the UCI ranking and she pretty much has enough points for a lifetime, she will be fine and she will also be protected on the first world cup so I don’t see any changes for me personally.
As a team manager, do you see this change affecting how the companies you work with make sponsorship decisions?
I don’t think it will make big changes for the companies but maybe some companies will now want to sponsor junior girls.
What is your opinion on the UCI ruling to cut the number of elite women able to qualify for finals?
I think it’s the right move because the World Cup should be the pinnacle, the very best riders in the sport at that moment in time. Right now I think it’s too easy to ride in the World Cup. This move will add to the motivation; if you crash or if you aren’t physically or technically 100% prepared then you shouldn’t qualify. In the long run, I think reducing the numbers will help to raise the bar and make the whole category better.
Do you think increased points and cutting the number of women able to qualify will be detrimental to the future of women’s downhill or have a positive outcome?
I’m not totally sure that it will make a massively noticeable difference, at least short term. If you’re serious about racing a World Cup you’ll make sure you get the necessary points – whether that’s 30 or 40. If you aren’t that serious then you shouldn’t be in it.
What sort of impact do you see these changes having on women’s elite level sponsorship, the approach to grassroots development and the overall number of women competing?
It should help the sport, race series like iXS Cups and Pearce Cycles will start to have more value to riders who’ll want/need to do more racing. At the Elite level I don’t think it will have a huge effect and what effect there is I hope will be positive. Some riders I see and they are technically amazing but they haven’t got the hours they need to train (most likely because they don’t have sponsor backing and so have to go to work!) If they are forced to make that leap, take the next step in their career then the level of riding will go up and there will be a bigger field of more legit riders – way more appealing to potential sponsors, so it feeds off itself.
In your personal experience, what impact do you see this having, if any at all?
I think it’s up to us as female riders to set the direction that these changes make. We can bitch about it and let it portray that we are less valued or we can bring solutions and make sure that it’s seen as a positive change. What sponsors see has to come from us first. Look at the example of young riders like Mille Johnset and Vali Holl, they aren’t even riding World Cups yet and they are already really proactive at portraying a positive image!
This article originally appeared on Pinkbike on 6 January 2017.