Before race radios, big days sometimes became big wins (Eros Poli was able to win the stage over Ventoux, or when Gilbert Duclos-Lasalle made that really long break) this sort of escapade would never happen now with radios. On the other hand neither would the deal making that goes on between teams be as easy to control and neither would Mark Cavendish's lead out train. Although I think the Columbia boys would manage OK.
Riders from the sixties, seventies and eighties had far more to gain by taking risks, but the racing was far more open. Without radios the racing was far more unpredictable and exciting, but it also threw up surprises and encouraged attacking rides. There are very few riders these days willing to risk it all (even the wrath of their DS) and have a big dig if their legs are feeling good. Managing a team is the role of the DS and the team captain, that could be the compromise; just one rider with a radio? Not sure that would be much good either.
Some reckon that the racing would appear more 'amateur'. Well with the wired-up automatons in the peloton marking each other and watching their power/wattage/HRM and asking the DS if they can pee... it's not really a 'sport' anymore, more a methodology and a controlled experiment. And let's not mention the WWF style 'set up' finales – I think amateur and exciting may be a great improvement.
The argument seems to be setting up a big fall-out with the riders, but the Tour have realised that if the race is to remain 'interesting' they have to take some drastic steps. OK so the drama is there this year, and the fact that there are a fewin there who could still win, but how much of this is media hype and how much is actual racing incident?
What has actually happened yet?