It’s being widely reported that the UCI is to change the rules governing clothing in DH and 4X competition to effectively ban wind-cheating skinsuits. The exact details of the new rules aren’t yet clear, but a UCI news release states that “All tight-fitting clothing is not permitted”. This comes alongside a slew of new recommendations for protective gear and a requirement for full-face helmets.

For many years the majority of the pro DH circuit has eschewed skinsuits for the more moto-inspired baggy look. There’s been an informal “gentlemen’s agreement” to leave the Lycra in the cupboard, not remove helmet peaks and so on in the interests of “the image of the sport”. This all goes out of the window at the World Championships, when national team outfits take precedence over the sponsors and it’s a full-on stretchfest, though.

Every so often, a rider will break ranks, particularly if a course is particularly open, fast or exposed and there’s a substantial advantage to be gained. This generally doesn’t go down well with the pack, but it’s perfectly legal within the rules.

Or rather, it was. For 2009, “tight-fitting clothing” will not be permitted, and helmets must have peaks (the UCI says “visors”, but we know what they mean). Now, generally I like to just report the facts and steer clear of (too much) editorialising, but I’m going to indulge myself here. For this is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read, ever.

The DH clothing ruling is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start, although the spendid irony in the “anti-establishment”, vaguely rebellious baggy stance becoming enshrined in the rules of the sport is pretty high up the list.

But the key thing to my mind is this. Downhill racing is, well, racing. The goal is to be the fastest. If your goal is to look the coolest (for whatever this year’s value of “cool” is – readers with long memories will no doubt recall that in the early 90s DHing in skinsuits was very much the done thing) then, frankly, racing is not your arena. Racing is about winning, and if you reckon that your best shot of winning is to ditch your flappy trousers, then you should be allowed to do that, in the same way as you get to choose your tyres, suspension settings and pretty much everything else.

Clearly, the importance of sponsorship has a lot to do with all this. Lots of manufacturers do very well out of baggy race kit, as seen on top racers. No-one is doing strong business in DH skinsuits. It’s all strangely reminiscent of the Graeme Obree saga, with the Scotsman’s record-breaking bike being continually banned by the UCI largely because it wasn’t like anything you could buy. However much the UCI tries to dress this up as a safety concern by tucking the “tight-fitting clothing” rule in amongst a load of recommendations for pads and helmets, it’s really all about image. And to my mind, that’s not something that should be governed by the rules.

What’ll be really interesting is how the rulemakers choose to define “tight-fitting”. If the issue is one of levelling the playing field, then this is clearly far too vague. The current competitive DH wardrobe covers a spectrum with skinsuits at one end and Sam Hill’s trousers at the other, but where does “tight-fitting” start? If you’re after aero advantage, then less-baggy trousers will give you that, but just how far will you be allowed to go? Will there be an official bagginess gauge?

So as well as being plainly ridiculous, the new rules are ill-thought-out and probably unworkable. Where will the UCI go from here? Well, if it’s all about perceived coolness, then presumably clipless pedals will be next to get the chop, followed by an outlawed range of Pantone values, changed seasonally.

If anyone sees the plot, could they forward it on to the UCI, please?