Why Did Haley Batten Get Fined At The Olympics?

A deeper dive into the UCI MTB rules

I did a poor job commenting on the MTB events at the Olympics. In a case of ill-timed travel that I won’t apologize for, I was touring around Iceland with my mom and sister when the races were taking place. After so many posts about the US Olympics MTB team, it was a bit funny not to cover the actual racing.

But with the World Championship XCO races this weekend, I decided to revisit the minor rules controversy in Paris because, to my knowledge, the same opaque rules are in effect for the world champs.

While you were watching the Olympics, I was chasing waterfalls in Iceland.

Let me start by saying I am beyond happy for Haley Batten (Specialized Factory Racing), a rider I’ve had the pleasure of photographing at races since her junior days. To recover from a flat tire and fight back to earn a silver medal, the best finish ever for an American in an Olympic MTB race, is phenomenal. Likewise, for Riley Amos (Trek Factory Racing) to race in the elites as a U23 racer and bust out a seventh-place finish is mind-blowing.

The entire US squad was the best we’ve sent to the Olympics, and I hope the program's momentum continues to grow¹.

With all those good vibes emanating from the Olympics and into this week’s World Championships, why would I want to go back and rehash the undeserved controversy at the end of the women’s race? It’s simple. I love looking at rules, and what happened to Batten is worth exploring. And in the end, nothing that occurred diminishes Batten’s accomplishment. So, let’s get into it.

Puck Pieterse was one of the favorites for gold in this race. She is hands-down one of the best bike racers in the world, and I love what she’s done for cycling across MTB, especially cyclocross, and when there is some open space on the calendar, World Tour road events. Pieterse’s enthusiasm for bikes, informative and lighthearted preview videos, and rowdy podium antics are precisely what the sport needs.

With that preamble aside, the Dutch federation’s attempt to protest Batten’s silver medal seemed ill-placed and a bit desperate.

The complaint was that Batten rode through the feed zone on the final lap without taking a feed. The Dutch federation asked the Olympic officials to disqualify Batten for breaking the rules despite their rider being a distant fourth. It wasn’t that Pieterse could have caught Batten if she hadn’t gone through the feed zone without taking a feed. It was more that Batten’s disqualification would mean Pieterse would be on the podium.

When I first saw the news of the Dutch protest, my gut reaction was that I didn’t think such a rule existed in XCO, and the Dutch were protesting based on a cyclocross rule rather than an MTB rule. In cyclocross, Rule 5.1.038 clearly states that you can’t ride through the pit without changing bikes or getting mechanical assistance.

Also, feeds are not allowed in cyclocross², so the situation is slightly different, but going through the pit without doing anything is clearly prohibited.

XCO mountain biking, on the other hand, does not have a similar rule or regulation. There are many rules addressing the technical and feed zones for a UCI XCO event, and these are the same rules in effect for the Olympics. But none prohibit riding through the feed zone without taking a feed. I’m including them below so you can check my work and confirm that nothing addresses going through the feed/technical assistance zone without receiving a feed or technical assistance³.

Going through these regulations, I couldn’t figure out how Batten was fined for breaking a non-existent rule. I reached out to a few of my contacts⁴ and learned that during the managers' meeting for the Olympic MTB events, the race organizer communicated that riders should not go through the feed zone without taking a feed. This is the note the Dutch relied on to lodge their protest.

Keep in mind that this was not a written instruction or an official communique. It was something said in the meeting similar to the Tokyo managers’ meeting in which organizers noted that the ramp on the exit of the big drop would not be present during the race. In light of that note four years ago, I’m sure the Dutch staff were poised to catch every last detail in this meeting.

One of my contacts who was in that meeting added, “I think most people understood how when every lap you go through the feed zone and then on the last lap you decide not to take a bottle because you are racing for a medal, not altering your lane could be a simple miss in the moment.”

And if we look at the feed zone at the Olympics, it’s hard to see how an advantage would be gained by not going through the pit lane.

The feed zone is on the rider’s right. The non-feed-zone lane to the rider’s left offers no advantage or disadvantage.

The only real advantage would be that your competitor may assume that since you are going through the feed zone, you will take a bottle, which will slightly slow your momentum, allowing them to also take a bottle and not lose any time. If you didn’t go through the feed zone, your competitor would know you’re going full steam ahead, and they may decide to follow you to avoid losing any time. Jenny Rissveds, who finished third, could have argued this, but she didn’t. She said Batten's not taking a bottle had no bearing on the final result.

If you look at a race like Nove Mesto, the most exciting part of that race is when riders attack the technical zone at the top of the track. It’s a move you must look for if you’re behind. In that instance, there isn’t a separate non-technical-zone lane, which may be why the rules (or lack thereof) remain vague.

But in the end, there was an oral directive, and Batten didn’t technically follow it. For that, the Dutch wanted her disqualified. The problem is that the rules aren’t set up to dole out that penalty in this situation.

In cyclocross, the consequences are explicit. If you violate 5.1038 or 5.1039, as posted above, the penalties are clearly stated:

XCO does not have an analogous penalty. Nothing addresses this situation. That’s why the UCI resorted to fining Batten 500 CHF for "Failure to respect the instructions of the race organisation or commissaires (using the pit lane without feeding or having technical assistance).” It’s a bit of a catchall penalty that does not carry a significant penalty.

Look at the penalty language when you get to part six of the list. You’ll notice that the UCI failed to follow its rules and fined Batten five times the maximum allowable amount.

I’m sure USA Cycling, the US Olympic Committee and Specialized were all more than happy to cover the payment and overpayment on her behalf.

Here are all of the MTB penalties and the rest of the UCI MTB rules for you to review and enjoy.

Ultimately, I found this to be an interesting dive into UCI’s MTB rules. My biggest takeaway from these types of exercises is that the UCI needs clear, definitive rules so that riders, federations, teams, and spectators know the expectations of the governing body.

Comments are open to everyone. Tell me what I missed or got wrong.

1. From the early returns at this year’s World Championships, it’s safe to say that momentum is still strong.

2. The history of what was acceptable in the cyclocross pits is worth its own article. At one point, you could go through the pit and put a foot down, which was good enough. But there weren't any clear rules until Lars van der Haar did the foot-down move and Sauce Boss, Jurgen Mettepenningen, protested. After that, you had to change bikes, and it was in the rules. There were also a few years when feeding was allowed. Those rules have been removed. The way around this is that you may have a bottle on your bike, and you can get a new bottle by exchanging it for a new bike with a new bottle in the cage.

3. The text in red indicates that the language is new for the 2024 season.

4. I chatted with USA Cycling but they did not comment on the incident or fine.