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.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a clear application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
Well Froome's frame broke because a tour moto hit him from behind at the crash. So in the end it was not just a spectator that caused him to lose so much.
On July 15 2016 01:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Well Froome's frame broke because a tour moto hit him from behind at the crash. So in the end it was not just a spectator that caused him to lose so much.
Yep I just read that on letour, that information does swing the decision towards Froome for me from the rule perspective, however if I was a benevolent dictator of the TdF and I wanted to make make the sport as good as possible, I wouldn't have done any time neutralizations. Definitely super nasty one to apply rules to because Porte's didn't break because of that, but if you didn't give them the same time... Yeah rough.
And poor Henao losing time he otherwise wouldn't lose if he didn't go out to help Froome. And that was the 7th GC guy.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
Well yeah but it's not like Mollema didn't lose time falling down. So Quintana gains time for getting slowed down but Mollema gets nothing for getting hurt and having to stand up and start again. Weird imo.
-Froome, Porte, and Bauke gain 19 seconds on GC -Dan Martin and Barguil lose 1'06" -Kreuziger loses 1'27', and truly pushing him out of GC running -Henao loses time to help Froome
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.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a direct application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
Well yeah but it's not like Mollema didn't lose time falling down. So Quintana gains time for getting slowed down but Mollema gets nothing for getting hurt and having to stand up and start again. Weird imo.
Yeah, it just gets so messy here as you can see, just give free time to everybody while you're at it, lol.
The more that TdF is about performance and the time at the finish line, and less like figure skating, the better off it'll be. Really sucks that these things happen, shit like this just kills so much hype for me.
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.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a direct application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
WHAT THE FUCK?!? Never seen such thing happen in my life.
On jury decision, I can't agree with it whatever way i look at it. If it wasn't for Froome this would never have happened. Sagan got bulldozed by motorbike in Vuelta last year, Flecha claims he had same happen to him with a car, still nothing given. Flexing the rules for specific person is not just.
On July 15 2016 03:47 Skynx wrote: WHAT THE FUCK?!? Never seen such thing happen in my life.
On jury decision, I can't agree with it whatever way i look at it. If it wasn't for Froome this would never have happened. Sagan got bulldozed by motorbike in Vuelta last year, Flecha claims he had same happen to him with a car, still nothing given. Flexing the rules for specific person is not just.
Hmm I guess you are right if you look at it that way. Anybody other than Froome or Quintana would probably get nothing.
Still remember that Fletcha crash well as it was also with dutchman Hoogerland who got thrown in barbed wire. The ASO really handled that one super bad, Hoogerland had huge injuries and had to sue for years to get compensation. They were leading quite far so Fletcha got denied a opportunity to win
Of course it's a grey area, else we wouldn't be having this discussion
First I don't think that saying that it was never done before is a bad argument, if something can be done better then it should. Second, this is a stage race, in fletcha or sagan (and I add the van Avermaet in San Sebastian last year) cases it's about a single stage/day, this is not SC2 where you can resume from replay. Third, I never said it was the organisation fault, only that it can be argued that way, if you see my last post I explicitly say they can't control everything. I don't even blame ASO for the lack of barriers, the stage wasn't even supposed to end there.
The point is that in the context of a stage race, and in a situation where a few riders IN THE LAST KM (sry for caps only want to make it stand out) get knocked by fans/motos, it makes no sense to benefit the riders who happened to not be affected by the accident when there's a very clear perspective of what was going to happen until the end of the stage, which was that Froome Porte and Mollema would gain time.
Just a last though, what if it wasn't an accident and the spectator who caused that 'accidentally' made the crash happen?
Edit: can anyone explain the Mollema and time bonuses situation?
Mollema did not get time compensation. When race ended normally he was 9' behind Yates on provisional results, it hasn't changed. Only two to blame in this situation are hooligans and race jury.
On July 15 2016 04:30 Gjhc wrote: Of course it's a grey area, else we wouldn't be having this discussion
First I don't think that saying that it was never done before is a bad argument, if something can be done better then it should. Second, this is a stage race, in fletcha or sagan (and I add the van Avermaet in San Sebastian last year) cases it's about a single stage/day, this is not SC2 where you can resume from replay. Third, I never said it was the organisation fault, only that it can be argued that way, if you see my last post I explicitly say they can't control everything. I don't even blame ASO for the lack of barriers, the stage wasn't even supposed to end there.
The point is that in the context of a stage race, and in a situation where a few riders IN THE LAST KM (sry for caps only want to make it stand out) get knocked by fans/motos, it makes no sense to benefit the riders who happened to not be affected by the accident when there's a very clear perspective of what was going to happen until the end of the stage, which was that Froome Porte and Mollema would gain time.
Just a last though, what if it wasn't an accident and the spectator who caused that 'accidentally' made the crash happen?
Edit: can anyone explain the Mollema and time bonuses situation?
Porte and Froome receive same time as Mollema, Valverde + Quintana + TJVG get same time as the main group of GC contenders because supposedly getting slowed down by the crash ahead.
As for you argument, I don't really agree with you. Look at what happened to Porte at the beginning of the Tour - get a flat and he was punished for it. Logically it's very obvious that if this didn't happen he would make it with the main group and would lose little to no time. Instead of inferring what would happen, let it happen, and make the time at the finish line count, no questions.
The time I don't agree with the approach is when it would completely compromise the race, i.e. a massive crash that leaves dozens injured, an obstacle in the road like a train or sabotage affecting a large group of people like spectators breaking glass bottles / throwing road spikes right before the peloton comes.
As unfortunate as it could be, but if a spectator straight up pushes someone off of a bike, I don't think it should be neutralized. The fact of whether there was intent or not of the spectators should not impact the result of the race... Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag? (Certainly it should affect the punishment for the spectator). I don't think Froome and Porte losing 1-2 minutes would be anywhere close to doing that.
It's just not what cycling is about, when some cyclist screws you over like that time Armstrong went over the grass to take the short cut to avoid a crash, you don't get compensated. Spectators are as much a part of cycling as players dropping on the ground for no reason in soccer/football. As a small technicality, I don't believe they passed the 1km marker yet (maybe 20m away), and the fences started at 500 meters, not 200 meters, so to provide some clarity to the smaller details, even though it shouldn't change anything much.
When the organizers mess up, neutralizing still isn't best, but it's more reasonable because at least the damage they cause has no bias towards certain riders, they save face in the eyes of the public with angry people at them, and it's not really a "racing accident", which spectators (imo), the road, other riders, etc are... But the camera crew and other cars less so. Still, even these situations I wouldn't neutralize - they are unfortunate events, but having a process to continuously lower the chances of these things happening while giving people an excellent viewing experience is best imo. In my viewpoint, the only time I'd justify a neutralization for a small incident is on a case by case basis when foul play is suspected between teams, whether that's a rider cutting someone off intentionally, someone else's' team car trying to hit you, and so forth - but even that can be handled by large penalties for the teams, like team disqualification from the Tour, etc.
Spectators are not part of the race, they just happen to be really close to it due to obvious reasons. And you just now said '...the spectators should not impact the result of the race...'. They shouldn't and now they did, can it be ignored?
Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag?
That was not my point. Let's say a Quintana fan makes it look like an accident and causes Froome to crash. We are talking about a very difficult situation, you never know why the spectator did it, and then a rider can lose everything he worked for because someone external to the race wanted to influence it's result. That's why I think that anything spectator related, especially at such a critical stage of the race should have zero tolerance and despite we never knowing the exact result that would happen at the finish line, it's better to make it the closest to the real thing than making a few riders lose time because of the public. And again I only agree with the decision because of all the factors, not just because it was spectator/moto related.
The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
"The fact of whether there was intent or not of the spectators should not impact the result of the race"
What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter whether the spectator did it intentionally or accidentally, both results should lead to the same thing. So what I am saying, is the action taken in both instances should be the same (don't neutralize).
Because of this, your next statement isn't in line with what I'm arguing. One of the reasons why I'm saying accident outcome = intentional outcome, is like you said, making it too difficult to tell apart, and we don't want to make TdF feel like a court case. A Quintana fan could push Froome over, much like how someone else could go shoot someone they don't like. However, a hopefully majority group of nice spectators keeping things in check, harsh penalties, security staff, and barriers where people get too rowdy is hopefully sufficient to keep them at a minimum.
You argue it's best to keep it closest to the real thing, which I agree with, but in my eyes, real thing means people getting to the finish line when they do.... Otherwise you start playing figure skating, and trying to subjectively judge the race.