You won't believe Colombian women's cycling team's uniform

Rate this post

What is wrong with people?

This is the uniform worn by Colombia’s women’s cycling team at the Tour of Tuscany last week in Italy.
Columbian women's cycling team

What appears to be the cyclists’ naked hairless crotches is actually a flesh-colored section between stomach and thighs, the effect of which is to make the young women look like prepubescent girls — the stuff of pedophiles’ perverse fantasy.

Brian Cookson, President of the Union Cycliste Internationale (International Cycling Union), calls the uniforms “unacceptable”:

To the many who have raised the issue of a certain women’s team kit, we are on the case. It is unacceptable by any standard of decency.

The uniform of the Colombian men’s cycling team, with its exaggerated crotch bulge, isn’t much better:

Columbian men's cycling team

Source: (UK) Metro


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “You won't believe Colombian women's cycling team's uniform

  1. Wow! I actually did a double-take thinking they were “exposed!” Who would approve such a look and why would the cyclists even put them on?!? That’s is about the craziest uniform I think I have seen on a “proffesional” team. Yikes!! 😊

  2. Reblogged this on SilentSoldier.

  3. Is this for real? Why would any woman, especially an athlete, wear this?

  4. I need to go get my eye wash, although I don’t think it is designed to erase what I just saw.

    • Reading that, I had a mental image of one of those little eye wash stations….
      ….with a fire hose leading up to it!

  5. This is sad and surprising. It appears their publicity directors decided on the Kim Kardashian method of getting attention. The Colombians I know, were raised in families that are so traditional, they made my Catholic parents look like wild libertines.

  6. I suppose that their bicycles will all be equipped with clips to carry their shovels….
    *This*, ladies and gentlemen, is where the modern feminist movement takes us, with its constant attacks on all things decent and moral and the gleeful glorification of “slut culture”.

  7. One more Bizarro New World Disorder moment in pop culture….

  8. The only thing wrong with that uniform is that sexual prudes and religious zealots will succeed in making a mountain out of an ant hill. If these women are willing to wear it, nobody should have a right to stop them.

    • “If these women are willing to wear it, nobody should have a right to stop them.”
      How wrong you are. Actually Brian Cookson, President of the Union Cycliste Internationale, has and can.

    • “The only thing wrong with that uniform is that sexual prudes and religious zealots will succeed in making a mountain out of an ant hill. ”
      Really?? That’s all that’s wrong with it??? Then please, do tell us how pleased and proud you would be for your mother, your grandmother, your sister, your wife, and your daughter to all be strolling around in public wearing that thing.

      • If my mother, grandmother, sister, wife, or daughter *wanted* to wear it, I would not stop any one of them. I have a right to my opinion, and so do they, even if we disagree. No matter what that might LOOK like to you, the simple fact is that they are decently covered. I’d like to see anyone prove otherwise.

        • “If my mother, grandmother, sister, wife, or daughter *wanted* to wear it, I would not stop any one of them.”
          Then you, sir, have no sense of decency, no sense of propriety, and no true love or respect toward the women in your life, your own family. You are hoist upon your own petard — as you make the point regarding Mr. Cookson, just because these women have the right to wear such scandalous things and advertise their own lack of decency and class does not mean that they *should*.
          “….the simple fact is that they are decently covered.”
          No, the simple fact is that they are INdecently covered, and the fact that you can not distinguish the difference speaks volumes.

        • Common sense and biology dictate that an “appearance of nudity” is equal to nudity, and contrary to the corrupted culture of pseudo-science otherwise referred to as “pop science”, acts as stimuli for the onlooker. It can reasonably be presumed that the maker of the uniforms in question knew exactly what they were doing especially given the placement of the coloration and the skin-tightness generally found in sports uniforms. Reasonably only two conclusions are left: the designer is incredibly uneducated at least, and it could be an honest mistake (but picking flesh-tone as a color, combined with tightness and position would indicate otherwise) Or the designer wanted to “send a message” and was fully aware of what they were doing in designing the uniforms.
          Even if the first case is true (and the previously mentioned placement, color and tightness would indicate it was not a choice made in ignorance) the end result is the same, an appearance of nudity that is effectively soft-core porn, despite the fact that no *actual* bits are showing, it dishonors the women wearing it by conveyance of apparent nudity, and violates the sensibilities of the viewers, in any case it is “nude-like” enough to violate public decency laws.
          FYI conveyance of nudity isn’t about people who take offense, it is about people purposefully offending others, public display of nudity is a violation of something that is meant to be of a private nature for both for a person and their spouse in the future, such violation is not only against the person (dishonoring them and having other ripple effects such as provoking lust in others), but also against their future spouse as well (giving away something to all onlookers that is supposed to be a gift for one person only).
          Despite the lack of actual nudity, the implied nudity has roughly the same effect as the above, except that it adds deception into the equation. Does an individual’s right to dress as they like trump the rights of someone else to not to view indecency? Something to consider.

    • Do the women in your family know just how little you think of them?

  9. Wow–what an accomplishment–they’ve achieved a new level of “stupid”.

  10. Are they being influenced by Liberals?

  11. Pantless women and guys with codpieces, representing the nation of Colombia! We can argue till the cows come home about right and wrong. But I agree with PMB:

    ‘Wow–what an accomplishment–they’ve achieved a new level of “stupid.”’

  12. Thank you, Trail Dust.

  13. Some other news on this: Which identifies the designer as team member Angie Tatiana Rojas (who suspects she’s a feminist?)
    However this one: gives the designer as cyclist-designer Angie Ariza, so which name is the legitimate one, and is she a feminist cultist?

  14. It’s obvious that none of the commenters are cyclists. For the women’s team the uniforms are a bit crass. For the men’s team the so called “cod piece” is actually padding so you’ll be able to ride. Modern street/racing bikes have Zero padding in the seat, you’re wearing the padding in your bike shorts. Better they (the men) wore the padding in their shorts than not, then you would seriously need Eye Bleach.

    • Thank you for the lesson in today’s cycling. I didn’t know about the padding in the bike pants.

    • “It’s obvious that none of the commenters are cyclists.”
      Begging pardon, but that’s not true. I am a highly experienced rider and was a bicycle commuter for years.
      Yes, cycling shorts are padded, and that padding is a real help for riders doing any distance, but the Columbian team shorts are a bit extreme.
      I have four or five pairs of cycling shorts around here (plus the ones I’ve worn out in years past), and NONE of them make me look like a boat plowing through rough seas.

      •, you just made my day! I don’t have enough experience cycling to give a good answer to ridder‘s remark. 😀
        I’ve enjoyed lots of road biking and mountain biking, but never with specialized clothing. Mine has just been sneakers, shorts, etc., on the mountain bike trails in New England, and the bike paths on Nantucket.

      • I “ditto” Trail Dust on his thanks,
        Compare this discreet pair of men’s bicycling shorts to the Columbian men’s bicycling team’s uniform. It also doesn’t help that the Columbian uniform is flesh-colored. LOL

        • Here’s a really funny bit of codpiece humor from the 1996 TV show, The Naked Truth.

          Tim Curry plays the bombastic role of Holland Taylor, the idiotic idle-rich owner of the TV News station the main characters work for.
          So for all you cutting-edge thinkers in the Colombian bicycle team, I remind you of Solomon’s words, “There is nothing new under the sun.” 😀

        • “, you just made my day!”
          “I ‘ditto’ Trail Dust on his thanks,”
          You’re both very kind; I’m just helping out where I can.
          That photo is excellent, a very good representative image of how an average man looks wearing “real” bike shorts. There is some padding in the front, but it’s certainly not grotesque; there is really not much need for padding there.
          The most important padding in cycling shorts is down low, between the legs and toward the rear. Its function is to cover and protect the lower points of the pelvis that are located there. Since those pelvic points are just below the bum cheeks and toward the inner part of the legs, there is almost no natural padding over them, and that lack of natural padding is emphasised in any sort of cycling position, because the legs are bent up and forward at the hip joints. Combine a proper cycling position with the natural rocking motion in the pelvis as the feet drive the pedals, and those pelvic points can create an enormous amount of pressure in the thin layers of soft tissue covering them. Everyone’s body is different, but for some folks it is absolute agony to ride any long distance without some padding there.
          Also, because it is those lower pelvic points, between the legs, that need protection for maximum comfort, and not toward the front, that is why women’s cycling shorts are padded in the same way as men’s shorts.
          In short, it is my opinion that the Columbian mens’ team shorts were designed, as the women’s uniforms, for shock effect. The exaggerated padding to the front is not necessary, and is of little or no physical function. In fact, my first thought when I saw it was how unwieldy it would be — the desired effect is not to be riding as if a pillow were stuffed between one’s legs, but to be able to snug up comfortably upon the bike, so that man and machine become one, maximizing both power and stamina.

          • Thank you,, for your analysis. The stuffed codpiece on the Columbian men’s cycling team uniform would make sense ONLY if the men ride their cycles lying face down so that the friction point is their penises, where they make contact with the seats. LOL

  15. Shameless!

  16. They evidently have no talent so go to extreme to get an audience ! ?Ridiculous and make them appear not serious about their sport !

  17. This is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.

  18. It is amazing to me that these women agreed to wear such slop. How stupid can you get? As for the men, they need to wear jockstraps. It is so boring to look at their “things”.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.