I'm guessing these saddle angles are illegal.
Not likely to see either of these in the local races though.
Even so, hard to imagine these angles give anyone an unfair advantage.
More like an unfair disadvantage.
Now I have often defended the UCI rules when others wouldn't. I do believe that the bike should not unreasonably define the winner of a race. That is, a superbike costing $25K or $50K should not be significantly better than a more mortal (yet still extremely expensive) $5K bike. The legs have to count for the vast majority of the race results. More importantly, old guys like me who can afford expensive stuff should not be able to beat younger guys who can't and are fitter - so mission accomplished there. Saddle tilt has nothing to do with the superbikes issue though - obviously.
But when you get into controlling the saddle's effect on the tender bits, the UCI needs to butt out. Literally and figuratively. A few degrees of saddle tilt does wonders for comfort and certainly does not provide the lame "lumbar support" unfair advantage the UCI claims. None of my saddles are perfectly level, an admittedly qualitative statement as I don't know how they measure "level". They all have a slight downward tilt to the nose of the saddle which shifts the weight off the more sensitive bits to the sit bones where it belongs. When that becomes illegal, no more UCI races for me. I want to retain full use of those more sensitive bits going into the future.
Hats off to Mr. Johan Bruyneel and Mr. Jonathan Vaughters and anyone else with a lot at stake who is willing to publicly criticize this ridiculous rule.
Velonews, they give you +3 degrees or 1 cm leeway, depending on what tools they have handy. I think that's enough for the average person and only the oddities will have issues - like the owners of the bikes above. And they have to save face, so they couldn't just admit it was a stupid rule and drop it.
And would anyone like to buy some aero bottles? Cheap. I have a couple of Arundels.