Consequences for Disruptive Spectators in Cycling
Incidents involving, or directly caused by, spectators are an unfortunate reality during events like the Tour de France and other cycling competitions. When such incidents occur, a pressing question arises: what kind of consequences will the spectator face? Whether the spectator faces criminal or civil prosecution, or in rare cases neither, depends on various factors, including the degree of intention or malice—whether actual or perceived—demonstrated by the spectator.
‘Allez Opi-Omi!’ in June 2021
A spectator leaning into the path of the riders with a large sign which read “Allez Opi-Omi!” caused a massive crash during the Tour de France involving roughly 50 riders.
Following the incident, the spectator was criminally charged by French authorities with “endangering others by manifestly deliberate violation of a regulatory obligation of safety and prudence”. The maximum possible penalty was a €15,000 fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment; however, the sentence handed down was a €1,200 fine.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, this spectator faced civil litigation from the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA) on behalf of the injured riders. The CPA is recognised by the world governing body of cycling (Union Cycliste Internationale) as ‘the largest international association of professional cyclists. Functioning essentially as a trade union, the CPA advocates for riders in a number of ways, in this case by suing the spectator for €1 with the intention of ‘raising awareness of the need to respect athletes in the performance of their profession’.
The spectator’s actions were responded to in proportion to the perception of malice. Despite the plain recklessness of giving into the desire to be caught on camera with a sign, the spectator’s conduct was not perceived as malicious or intending to cause harm to the riders. The spectator received one of the mildest criminal sentences possible and a symbolic civil fine which intended to highlight the broader issues of accountability and the protection of athletes.
‘Cap’ in April 2024
During the Paris-Roubaix, a spectator threw a cap towards Van der Poel’s bicycle, specifically near the wheels. As more footage surfaced capturing the moment from different angles, it began to appear that the woman had intentionally done so.
In this case, the civil litigation was brought by the French cyclists’ union, the UNCP, on behalf of the CPA. In June, it was revealed that the UNCP had offered to reach an agreement with the spectator and drop the lawsuit if she agrees to the three following conditions:
1. Admit her wrongdoing;
2. Complete volunteer work with the ‘Les Amis de Paris-Roubaix’ association; and
3. Participate in a public campaign on cycling safety.
There is no current information as to whether or not the spectator has accepted these conditions.
Public perception seems to consider that the spectator intentionally tried to disrupt or cause harm to Van der Poel. That perception is reflected in the severity of the proposed conditions offered by the UNCP. Even though this case lacks any criminal prosecution or monetary fine, the potential civil consequences are vast in their potential emotional cost by requiring the spectator to forfeit her anonymity and essentially open herself up to the criticism of the public.
‘Chips’ in July 2024
A seemingly inebriated spectator threw a handful of chips at Tadej Pogačar and subsequently Jonas Vingegaard during stage 14 of the Tour de France.
The spectator was arrested by French authorities and spent the night in jail before being released the following morning when the riders and their teams chose not to press criminal charges against him.
Despite the lack of criminal prosecution, the CPA has announced that they will take civil legal action against the spectator. Adam Hansen confirmed that such action would be headed by the UNCP on behalf of CPA similarly to previous cases as seen above.
It is unknown whether the UNCP will pursue a symbolic fine as in the ‘Allez Opi-Omi!’ case to raise awareness regarding the dangers of becoming too inebriated, or if they will pursue something more severe akin to that seen in the ‘Cap’ case still ongoing. The UNCP’s approach will likely depend on whether the spectator is perceived as simply having been too inebriated for his own good or as having intended to cause some degree of harm or disruption to the riders.
Conclusion
Incidents caused by spectators raise questions about the appropriate consequences for such behaviour. The examples above illustrate a range of legal responses, from mild criminal sentences and symbolic fines to more complex civil actions. The severity of the consequences often hinges on public perception of the spectator's intent, whether it is seen as simply reckless or malicious. The ongoing developments of the ‘Cap’ and ‘Chips’ cases will continue to shape the future of legal and public responses to spectator conduct in the cycling community. Potentially resulting in a shifted balance between ensuring accountability, protecting riders, and educating the public.
References
‘Allez Opi-Omi!’
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/sports/tour-de-france-crash-fan.html
https://road.cc/content/news/tour-de-france-spectator-who-caused-crash-fined-eu1200-288509
https://road.cc/content/news/trial-set-open-woman-who-caused-tdf-crash-287071
‘Cap’
https://road.cc/content/news/paris-roubaix-spectator-throws-cap-van-der-poel-307707
‘Chips’