Professional cyclist Willie Smit was disqualified from the Tour of Magnificent Qinghai after race officials determined he violated UCI regulations regarding the use of wearable recording technology. The rider, competing for the China Anta-Mentech team, was removed from the event following the opening stage in Xining, according to his own account shared on social media. The disqualification centers on the use of video-recording glasses, which the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) classifies as prohibited onboard technology.
The incident highlights a growing tension between modern wearable technology and strict UCI equipment standards. According to UCI regulation 1.3.006 bis, riders are permitted to use devices that capture data or images, provided those devices are fitted to the bicycle. The regulation explicitly states that such devices may only be worn by riders if specific discipline rules authorize it. Because video-recording eyewear is not currently covered under these authorizations, their use is categorized as a prohibited onboard technology, punishable by elimination or disqualification.
Smit, who has a 14-year career in professional cycling, stated that he was unaware of the rule, which he noted was implemented in April. “Today I was disqualified for the first time in my cycling career (14 years), for wearing glasses that record video,” Smit posted on X. “Unfortunately, I was not aware of a new rule that was implemented in April that prohibited this. A warning, fine or yellow card could have also been enough.”
Today I was disqualified for the first time in my cycling career (14 years), for wearing glasses that record video. Unfortunately I was not aware of a new rule that was implemented in April that prohibited this. A warning, fine or yellow card could have also been enough. But what… pic.twitter.com/II7nRUPKsE
— Willie Smit (@WillieSmit) July 12, 2026
Discrepancies in Onboard Technology Enforcement
Following his removal from the race, Smit publicly questioned the consistency of UCI enforcement. He pointed to the use of handheld cameras by riders in high-profile events like the Tour de France, where such footage is frequently shared on official channels. Smit argued that the distinction between a handheld camera and an integrated camera in eyewear seems arbitrary given that both perform the same function of recording moving images.
The glasses in question are the Oakley Meta Vanguard, a product that features a 12MP camera and integrated AI technology. While these devices are popular for content creation, their use in a competitive peloton has raised questions regarding transparency and the potential for covert filming. In professional cycling, the UCI maintains strict control over what equipment is allowed on the bike to ensure fairness and prevent unauthorized performance data or video advantages.
Regulatory Context for Wearable Tech
The UCI’s stance on onboard technology has evolved rapidly to keep pace with consumer electronics. The governing body maintains a list of authorized devices, which primarily includes items like power meters, heart rate monitors, and approved onboard cameras mounted to the bike frame or seat post. By mandating that cameras be fitted to the bicycle rather than worn by the athlete, the UCI retains the ability to inspect and approve the specific placement and impact of the device on the race.
Smit’s disqualification serves as a reminder to professional riders that the “tech-friendly” nature of modern racing does not grant carte blanche for all consumer wearables. As of now, the UCI has not indicated any plans to revise the 1.3.006 bis regulation to accommodate smart eyewear. For riders, the incident serves as a warning that even commercially available technology, if not specifically authorized, can lead to immediate expulsion from a race.
The Tour of Magnificent Qinghai continues following the opening stage, which was won by Alexander Salby of the Li Ning Star team. While Smit has indicated he will accept the decision, his public critique has sparked a broader conversation within the cycling community regarding the need for clearer communication on emerging technology rules. Whether the UCI will issue further guidance or clarify the distinction between permissible handheld devices and prohibited wearable tech remains to be seen.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on the balance between athlete-generated content and regulatory compliance in the comments section below.
Related reading