|
On July 15 2016 00:51 mahrgell wrote: Froome is still in Yellow. Jury decided in his favor
Oof, that's shocking.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
|
As usual, the tour is full of retards. Terrible organization, a bunch of idiots as spectators, it is depressing. The jury has done the good call and the rules have been applied. When the road is blocked, the climber is protected.
|
On July 15 2016 00:55 stilt wrote: As usual, the tour is full of retards.
?
Name me one sport where there isn't 1+ unintelligent person in the live audience? But when you watch cyclists go up a big climb, you can see the difference between cycling and every other big sport in the world (the proximity of spectators to cyclists).
|
On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
|
On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
|
On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
|
Mollema still on 9 seconds from Yates though, coincidence or did they not change his time?
|
On July 15 2016 00:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:? Name me one sport where there isn't 1+ unintelligent person in the live audience? But when you watch cyclists go up a big climb, you can see the difference between cycling and every other big sport in the world (the proximity of spectators to cyclists).
I was at the Alpe last year and I can tell you that there are a lot of idiots who act in dangerous ways with pretty wide movements in very narrow place. They threw beers on climbers, were generally totally drunk. Accidents like this will happen again in the Tour. For the others sports, this is not really a problem as you say, people are not that close.
|
On July 15 2016 00:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage. Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
And what if he lost for less than 1:30? It can be argued either way, except that he (and Porte + Mollema) were the ones ho would have gotten penalised for something exterior to the race and that the race have the responsibility to prevent
|
On July 15 2016 01:00 Gjhc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage. That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders.
The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator.
Oh well, it's done now.
|
You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
|
On July 15 2016 01:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:00 Gjhc wrote:On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage. That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view) People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders. The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator.
That would be 1 min 40 lost. And the rules were not as selectives as you might think, there were no room on the road, in this condition, a second chance can be offered. Moreover, in the last km, barriers should have been here, the organization failed.
|
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
|
On July 15 2016 01:01 Saechiis wrote:Mollema still on 9 seconds from Yates though, coincidence or did they not change his time? Apparently they gave Froome the same time as Mollema on this stage. So Mollema is still 56s behind Froome like he was at the start of the race, but gains time on Yates who finished later than him today
|
On July 15 2016 01:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:00 Gjhc wrote:On July 15 2016 00:57 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2016 00:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Oof, that's shocking. Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time? Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention. They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage. That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view) People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders. The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator. Oh well, it's done now.
Agree 100% with your post, when you judge something diferent because of the rider then the rules can be bend or selctive in anytime. Froome is the best in this TdF but that decision was a bad decision.
|
On July 15 2016 01:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF Come on man, don't be silly. There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
|
On July 15 2016 01:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF Come on man, don't be silly. There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
I follow the Tour since 1998 and cycling competition in general, I don't remember seeing such a case. A moto which causes a fall of a top climber in one of the big 3 weeks race because of a too high numbers of spectators... Pretty sure it never happened and there is no clear regulation about this. Beside, Quintana can still be happy, he would have probably lost 10 more seconds if this accident did not happen.
|
On July 15 2016 01:20 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF Come on man, don't be silly. There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit. DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay... Yeah they could easily add more fences. Marathons do 42km of fencing
In the end though, it's very hard to stop a determined retard from fucking things up I guess.
|
On July 15 2016 01:20 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 01:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF Come on man, don't be silly. There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit. DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
That (FiWiFaKi) is exactly what I think, it's impossible for them to control everything especially the spectators. Do you know that the Yates crash was also cause by a spectator how accidentally unplugged the power of the flame rouge? They also can't control crashes and the weather and whatnot but whenever something that is out of their control affects the race they should make the decisions based on the truth of the sport, which in this case is that the 3 riders in front were gaining time that was not expected to decrease.
|
100% disagree with the jury. Obviously they gave Froome preferential treatment. So many incidents with spectators/motos happen, but nothing is ever done. Everyone should be treated the same imo.
|
|
|
|