If the government says healthy people should avoid outdoor activity should a bike race go ahead?
That’s the question facing the organisers of the Tour of Beijing which starts tomorrow as air pollution levels in Beijing today reaching a red-alert score of 397, a level declared as hazardous for all. Is it safe to race?
First let’s put the current level of pollution in context as 397 probably doesn’t mean much. The score is issued hourly. The pollution indices and codes below are defined by China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection:
As we can see, 397 is well into the red alert level where “healthy individuals should avoid out door activities“. If 200 points is light pollution but 300 means heavy, then going 97 points past the severe pollution threshold is a big deal. So if the Chinese government tells people to stay indoors, should a bike race take place?
Bike racing is a risky sport with wet roads and sharp corners. The difference here is these conditions can be tackled, riders can change tires and use their brakes. If the sun shines then some riders use sunscreen. When it rains in Belgium there is no government advice to avoid the cobbles.
The Chinese authorities and health professionals warn against exercise and there’s little riders can do to mitigate the risk. If teams could find masks to filter the pollution the riders could not breathe through them.
What are the heath risks?
Air pollution is a matter of degree, the higher the AQI score, the worse the air. Then it’s all about duration, the longer you spend outdoors, the greater the exposure. But it’s also dependent on what you do outdoors. A race means you’re breathing at a rate that’s maybe 20 times the normal airflow of a sedentary person so a few hours of racing is the equivalent of spending much longer outdoors walking. And hard exercise in polluted air puts a strain on the cardiovascular system because the reduced lung function sees the heart trying to compensate, putting an additional strain. At worst it can provoke a heart attack but this appears unlikely in a fit cyclist.
Scanning the PubMed database and its extracts, it seems there’s no particular threshold for time or pollution. But exposure can increase your chances of becoming asthmatic and getting other long problems, both in the short term and longer term problems. So if it’s a matter of nuance we fall back on the government advice. Given the Chinese authorities advise against exercise, what should be done? Fortunately the UCI sets out plenty of guidelines for rider safety. First up, safety of a race is a factor in awarding a race “World Tour” licence:
2.15.149 In addition to meeting the conditions set out in the regulations, the following selection criteria shall be taken into consideration by the licence commission in deciding to refuse a licence, grant it for a reduced duration or to select between events falling in the same class under article 2.15.147:
…3. the quality of organisation, particularly as regards safety;
I suppose we’ll never know if the UCI officials sat down to evaluate the obvious risks of air pollution and if they decided on any precautionary measures. Once again the danger here is that as both race organiser and governing body awarding the licence to the race, the UCI straddles a conflict of interest, where the duty of care competes with money.
As employers the teams have particular duties to their riders, here’s the UCI rulebook again:
1.1.079 The team manager shall constantly and systematically strive, wherever possible, to improve social and human conditions and protect the health and safety of the team’s riders.
13.1.002 Each Team taking part in cycle races shall constantly and systematically ensure that its members are in proper physical condition to engage in cycling. It shall also ensure that their members practice the sport under safe conditions.
Here the burden is obvious. If a team has to ensure its riders “practice the sport under safe conditions” then if the government says it is not safe to exercise outdoors then a team has a duty to heed this advice. Perhaps though it can obtain a second opinion, for example seeking the advice of the team doctor or a respiratory illness expert.
Where does the buck stop?
The race organiser is “entirely and exclusively responsible” under UCI rule 1.2.032. So any decision on safety from the race has to come from GCP, the UCI’s 100% owned race promotion subsidiary, and its partners in Beijing.
However others have a duty too. Commissaires normally think of safety in terms of adequate barriers to hold the crowds back near the finish line or making sure danger spots like narrow roads are pointed out. But they can’t miss the smog. Similarly the UCI rules are also clear that teams have a duty to their riders. If health risks beyond the normal dangers of a race exist then a team is responsible for the riders
The UCI’s advice is clear (my emphasis):
Out of respect for the riders, the organiser should avoid heavily polluted areas as much as possible (industrial towns, etc.), particularly if there are other options for the race route
Are there other options for the route? Perhaps the race shouldn’t be in Beijing at all and it’s late to re-route; these are questions for another day. There is the possibility to cancel the urban stages and only race the rural roads. But this depends how much the race has tried to escape the smog of Beijing. Indeed they could cancel a stage or even the race. The UCI’s own race handbook says:
The organiser must consider that it may be necessary to cancel the event, for example in cases of force majeure (adverse weather conditions, political reasons, etc.).
If the conditions are beyond the control of the race, the UCI and everyone else then cancellation is reasonable. But given the Tour of Hangzhou went up in smoke the UCI’s push into China would face crippling humiliation if the race was cancelled. Don’t forget the UCI was caught pressuring team sponsors this time last year to “encourage” their squads to take part, this showed just how vital this race is to the governing body. Even if it might be the right thing to do, don’t expect safety to trump money.
Perhaps the best solution is to shorten the stages. It happens when snow blocks the road (see the Tour of California or the Etoile de Bessèges this year) and Chinese climate conditions could also make shortening the stage safer. Instead of 120-150km, riders could be driven along the route and perhaps complete the final 40km and then stage a “sprint” to satisfy the locals, preferably without awarding World Tour points so everyone is encouraged to ride tempo instead damaging their lungs. This would represent a compromise between health and the UCI’s desire not to lose face in front of the Beijing government.
For all the talk of safety and reading the UCI’s own rules the history of the sport is very different. From the earliest days riders have faced inhuman conditions and the sport has become associated with suffering and danger. However most of the legends are tales of overcoming adversity, whether climbing over a mountain or riding through a snowstorm. It seems quite unlikely that we’ll remember Tony Martin’s overall win in Beijing last year as a triumph over adverse air pollution.
Indeed in the modern era things are quite different. Riders are employees and have rights. Gone are Albert Londres’ “convicts of the road”, today a riders sign employment contracts just like anyone else in, say, Belgium or the USA and have corresponding expectations of safety in the workplace, albeit adjust for sports. However if things have improved, we rarely see riders take much of a stand. So even if their lungs are at risk, don’t expect to see the riders stage a protest.
Finally let’s spare a thought for the locals. Whether it’s kids walking to school or the elderly, this is a daily problem for residents of Beijing. Many workers have to endure the pollution whilst our riders can jet in and jet out. But I’m not blogging about China or environmentalism so I’ll leave this broad topic for others. Nevertheless, local cyclists have the choice not to exercise whilst the riders in the race will probably be told to start as normal.
Cycle racing is dangerous enough but we take steps to mitigate the risks. Tunnels have to be lit, sharp corners come with warning signs, whistles and even bales of hay. So when the city government advises its citizens to stay indoors, staging a bike race in these conditions is certainly contradictory and maybe even reckless. Unless fresh air arrives in time for the race making riders complete the full distance seems unnecessary.
It’s a shame for everyone that the weather and pollution are conspiring to reach such hazardous levels whether fans in Beijing or riders who want, or even need, a result in this race. Pollution is part of life in the Chinese capital as the country rushes to catch up to the standard of living enjoyed in Western cities via rapid industrial growth and perhaps locals accept pollution as the price to pay? We’ll leave this question for others.
All this blog knows is that the UCI’s own rules and guidelines state the race organisers and teams have responsibilities when it comes to health and safety, that air pollution is at severe levels and the local advice is not to exercise.