A nail-biting race down to the millimetre: The finish-line technique explained

Giulio Ciccone was leaning over the barrier, with his manager Alex Carera beside him, trying to console him. Moments earlier, the Italian had lashed out at his handlebars. After a long, gruelling wait, the jury had analysed the photo finish, and the European Championship title went to Remco Evenepoel. Ciccone’s reaction was first one of anger, then disappointment, and finally he publicly questioned how the decision had been reached. It has now been a few days since the European Championships, and tempers have calmed down. With a little hindsight, it is worth taking a dispassionate look at the question raised by this case: how much trust does a technology deserve when it decides the outcome by thousandths of a second?

​A race featuring a crash and a comeback

Even before the finish line photo had been taken, the race on 4 October provided plenty of drama. Over the final 36 kilometres of the roughly 196-kilometre route, Belgium sent their team leader to the front, and Ciccone immediately followed. The pair reached the crest together. In the following bend, Evenepoel crashed, and Ciccone initially carried on alone. The Belgian was back on his bike in no time, and Maxim Van Gils brought him back to the twelve-man chasing group.

Evenepoel was not fazed by this. On a short climb on the descent from Mozjanca, he attacked again. This time, Ciccone was the first to react. From then on, the two rode together towards Šenčur, with the Italian managing his energy wisely. In the final kilometres, Ciccone left the work at the front almost entirely to the Belgian. That seemed to pay off. In the final bend, Ciccone launched his sprint early, caught Evenepoel off guard and looked like the certain winner for a long time. But the Belgian closed the gap once more at high speed and crossed the line with perfect timing.

"I’ve looked at the pictures a hundred times"

A day after the race, Ciccone posted on Instagram. He did not dispute Evenepoel’s victory as an achievement. He described the Belgian as the strongest rider of the day, who had read the complicated race superbly. He then went on to discuss the photo finish, however. He said he had watched the available footage countless times. In the shots where the finish line is visible, he said he could see a sequence of events that, in his view, did not support the verdict.

What matters is what Ciccone is actually after. Officials and association technicians had explained to him that morning how the technology works and the criteria used to analyse the image. He therefore does not need any further explanation. He wants to see something else: the finish-line photograph that corresponds exactly to the point at which, according to the regulations, the finish is measured. A television image should expressly not replace the finish-line photograph. If the photograph confirms the decision, the matter is settled as far as he is concerned.

Why the finish-line photo isn’t a photo

Ciccone was not alone in his doubts. When the photo finish was first shown, Ciccone’s bike appeared smaller than it actually was, whilst Evenepoel’s bike looked longer. This immediately raised questions. However, this is down to physics, not an error. A camera continuously scans a single vertical strip exactly on the finish line. The horizontal axis of the final image therefore shows the time, not the distance. Anyone crossing the finish line faster appears compressed, whilst anyone slower appears stretched.

The European Cycling Union (UEC) has defended its procedures in a statement. An EtherLynx Vision PRO X system was used at the European Championships, recording the finish line 13,000 times per second. According to the UEC, the decisive factor is the leading edge of the front wheel at the moment it crosses the line. To ensure reliability, two independent systems were in use. The two cameras were positioned on opposite sides of the road. Ciccone and the Italian Cycling Federation were shown the footage from both systems. As both systems show Evenepoel in the lead, the UEC considers the matter closed and does not wish to comment further.

The confusion over the figures

However, it is precisely on the most important figure that the figures differ. In his post, Ciccone mentioned 0.0028 seconds. The official timekeeper, EvoData, later quoted 0.0002 seconds. Given the speed of the two riders as they crossed the finish line, this corresponds to approximately three millimetres. On closer inspection, the smaller figure adds up: at around 60 km/h, a rider covers almost five centimetres in 0.0028 seconds – significantly more than three millimetres. Ciccone’s calculation therefore assumed a distance more than ten times greater than that actually measured.

A title with a history behind it

This sort of debate is nothing new in cycling. Back in 2021, Wout van Aert’s victory in the Amstel Gold Race against Tom Pidcock raised very similar questions. On that occasion, the Belgian was six millimetres ahead. For Evenepoel, the discussion is no longer relevant anyway. He finished second at the European Championships in both 2021 and 2025. With his victory in Slovenia, he has now also won the last elite title that was still missing from his collection.

Calm has now returned regarding the photo finish. The evidence clearly goes against Ciccone; two cameras have reached the same conclusion, and the federation has closed the matter. With a few days’ hindsight, the view of the Italian is also more lenient. His call for transparency was not merely a defiant reaction from a sore loser. When a European championship title hinges on three millimetres, the runner-up at least wants to see those three millimetres for himself. That’s understandable. But what do you think – is the UEC’s decision to shelve the case the right one? Let us know in the comments.