|
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: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. 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.
No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization.
This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here.
Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k.
Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling.
|
On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: 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 bolded part sums up my argument beautifully.
Crap happens. What would happen if we neutralized races due to mechanicals? Everyone would ride the flimsiest bikes imaginable just to improve the efficiency of their bikes 100%. What would happen if contact with a spectator was neutralized? Well people would maybe take corners very sharply and near spectators, would have no need to have self-awareness of what's around them, because oh, someone was accidentally too close, and now I don't need to push on this climb all of the sudden. This would be the most abusable thing ever, and every case would create drama as the jury would have to come to some decision about whether this rider had enough due diligence in his riding.
So, like you said, crap happens, sucks for everyone - but neutralizing situations becomes too messy, not what most people would like to associate with cycling. The 3km sprinting rule works for sprints very well, and if there was a set in stone rule with no ambiguity for mountain finishes like here, then great.... But mountain stages don't work the same, and I don't think you can do something like that without really taking away from the cycling.
|
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.
No. Just flat out no. This is nonsense.
I would agree that obviously you cannot protect the entire stage. That would be beyond absurd to imagine. However, this was in the FINAL KILOMETER. If it would have happened 7km out, or 20km out, or 100km out I'm right there with you. But this was in the last kilometer. Normally major climbs have barriers in the last 3km. 500 meters here today. This knowing that the climb had been shortened by 6km, on a major french holiday, packing overwhelming spectator numbers into about half the usual space.
This was not out of control spectators or dumb-asses. This was too many people in one place and the incompetence of the race organizer to realize the obvious problems it would cause.
|
On July 15 2016 05:53 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:59 FiWiFaKi 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. 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. No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization. This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here. Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k. Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling.
The internet seems to have varying opinions, and people having different opinions on these things is what controversy is.
Either way, using the rulebook and past precedents, decision is fine (if I was to nullify the crash, I'd probably do the same as they did), but philosophically to me, I don't think it's a good decision. I have a feeling there will be disagreement in every post of mine you read today D:
|
Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
|
As far as the actual racing goes, gotta hand it to Froome, Porte and Mollema. They clearly were going well today. Quintana I was worried about from the first attack. It didn't seem to have pop to me, which 9/10 times happen because you're already working hard and even getting out 600w is hard compared to getting out 900w. Proved to be the case as eventually Quintana couldn't follow.
It's looking from for him right now. I think the double crosswind stages took too much out of him. When you're a small guy like that with lower absolute wattage on the flats crosswinds are the devil. He had to fight yesterday and today most likely just to stay with the group, and I don't think he will stem the bleeding tomorrow. I'm expecting a 1:30-3:00 loss tomorrow from Quintana. Anything inside a minute would completely shock me.
I think Quintana will be the better climber after the rest day and into the third week, but I suspect that Chris Froome is going to have plenty of margin to hold him off. I'm pleased to see my assessment of Porte proving accurate, as he looks like he is in clear competition with Quintana for that 2nd place spot at the moment.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed and pulling hard, but it looks very, very grim for Quintana right now. Watching Mollema will be interesting too. Is he going to contend, or did he have a magical day today?
|
On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
A lot of things are done to make the race more exciting, like combativity award, intermediate sprints, bonus seconds, 3km rule... Stuff that imo really has nothing to do with cycling, but it's done for entertainment value. So when you say a crash is due to a spectator is not normal... I think a lot in the TdF is not normal, I mean most teams in the tour ride with the intent of getting maximum screen time, that's not really normal either.
So yeah, just to close off, I think that something should be done too, but at the end of the day, not happy with the available choices, which is giving people credit for expected performance. But yeah, different opinions are nice, as they can spur new shifts in your thinking and stuff. No personal vendettas and respectful disagreement is just fine
|
On July 15 2016 05:58 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:53 L_Master wrote:On July 15 2016 00:59 FiWiFaKi 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. 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. No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization. This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here. Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k. Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling. The internet seems to have varying opinions, and people having different opinions on these things is what controversy is. Either way, using the rulebook and past precedents, decision is fine (if I was to nullify the crash, I'd probably do the same as they did), but philosophically to me, I don't think it's a good decision. I have a feeling there will be disagreement in every post of mine you read today D:
Haha probably so. I really struggle to see your point though I'll admit. If I put on a race, it's my responsibility to ensure the ability of the riders to race properly and safely. If I fail to act appropriately to ensure safety, I absolutely should not punish the people riding my race as a result of my incompetence.
Presumably we can agree that taking time from 1km reflects very closely the gaps we would have seen at the finishing line had there been no spectators on the course.
So, I guess the argument is that regardless of interference of any kind, you always just chalk it up to random chance/luck and let it go at that. I just don't know about that one. Let me ask you what you think they would do in baseball if a fan jumped out the stands, into the stadium, and grabbed a ground ball and ran around the field with it a bit, turning it into a doube, triple, or inside the park home run? Or if in a NFL game some fan charged out the field and grabbed the QB's arm as he was getting ready to throw, resulting in a fumble?
I'd be willing to bet, quite a lot, they would neutralize the play. What they definitely wouldn't do is say "oh a fan running out on the field is bad luck, we will let the results of that stand". We see clearly that the "bad luck" approach is not what's used in any other sport in the case of deliberate outside interference or organization incompetence, and to me any other decision doesn't make sense. I don't see a basis for it, whether from an equitable standpoint or a logical one.
|
On July 15 2016 06:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^ I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
Which they did the opposite of today...
It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over".
I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that?
Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton?
|
My perspective is that if I organize an event, besides making money, I want to do everything I can to provide a fair experience to the players, where they can feel reasonably safe. So you're right, and you gave a better perspective of why TdF failed when discussing stuff like Bastille day and whatnot.
I mentioned that I support neutralization if it significantly impacts the whole race and made the implicit assumption that repeating or save-resuming is difficult. In cycling, you can't repeat a play, most sports that I can think of are focused on the same play over and over, so repetition is more feasible. Besides the impossibility of getting everyone to stop to wait for people to fix their bikes, physically it'd be very tough to simulate as well. To be clear, I'd 100% be in favor of doing some form of restart if something like that happened, kind of how the peloton waits if someone important has a mechanical. So in most sports, the play is done again, and it's replicated relatively similarly, and the winner of that play gets the point, that's fine, that's good.
However in cycling, nothing is repeated, so it's just assumed this would happen, and boom, here is this much time for you. In some sports sometimes you get credit when there's such an overwhelming chance you'd win and something happens, but the issue with cycling is it's not a overwhelming chance of some discrete win/lose quantity, but a continuous quantity instead. And not only that, but I think that same time as Mollema was too big of an assumption. And like others said, Mollema, and others who got slowed down by the crash didn't get any bonus... It's a rule that is applied selectively, and I don't feel confident to say that the result would have been the same if it was only Mollema crashing either.
So yes, I don't think the real results mimic reality accurately enough. I feel much better about the 3km rule because there is far more certainty in sprints. I also don't like it because the impacts of the crash transfer over to the next day (i.e. potentially having more energy for the next day, while in other sports this effect is much smaller)... If there was more certainty in the outcome, and more guarantee that the rule would be applied consistently, I'd be more open to siding with it.
On July 15 2016 06:43 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 06:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^ I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening. Which they did the opposite of today... It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over". I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that? Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton?
I would look at the situation from the other perspective. Yes, organizer fucked up, but now we will just make an assumption of how things would go to give these two people a podium for the stage they would have won. I don't think it's fair to the other riders... The ones who crashed didn't earn that time (if they re-do a play in other sports, they earn that point/time/etc).
I actually gave the exact train example in a post 1-2 pages back. Neutralization is good in this case (for cycling), because the outcome of the race would be massively compromised, while Froome and Porte are just 2 out of 198. Of course, all I'm saying is as my opinion and I'm not stating them as facts.
As for the barrier example, I think that's something that the peloton would deal with themselves and wait, but if they didn't, it once again for me depends on how many people it compromises. If 2-3 take the wrong turn, sucks for you that you're racing in a race where the organizer isn't more careful, but it is what it is. If it's like 10-15+ people, then yeah, some kind of neutralization is needed. In esports I see teams get screwed very often by organizers, and it's the same thing, they don't gift you wins because statistically you're going to win (unless it's accidently gg'ing or something where there is irrefutable certainty), however there it can be handled with replaying far more often.
|
Also just to note, I didn't start this conversation with some concrete views, and I've built them through thinking and posting here as well, so I apologize for being so drawn out with my thoughts. To sum it up in one statement though, and what I'll leave it off as is:
I think that it's unfair to the other 190 riders, so the unfairness to the 2 riders must be balanced with that, and also, I think that it's a decision that will lead to more of these unfair situations in the future.
|
On July 15 2016 06:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:My perspective is that if I organize an event, besides making money, I want to do everything I can to provide a fair experience to the players, where they can feel reasonably safe. So you're right, and you gave a better perspective of why TdF failed when discussing stuff like Bastille day and whatnot. I mentioned that I support neutralization if it significantly impacts the whole race and made the implicit assumption that repeating or save-resuming is difficult. In cycling, you can't repeat a play, most sports that I can think of are focused on the same play over and over, so repetition is more feasible. Besides the impossibility of getting everyone to stop to wait for people to fix their bikes, physically it'd be very tough to simulate as well. To be clear, I'd 100% be in favor of doing some form of restart if something like that happened, kind of how the peloton waits if someone important has a mechanical. So in most sports, the play is done again, and it's replicated relatively similarly, and the winner of that play gets the point, that's fine, that's good. However in cycling, nothing is repeated, so it's just assumed this would happen, and boom, here is this much time for you. In some sports sometimes you get credit when there's such an overwhelming chance you'd win and something happens, but the issue with cycling is it's not a overwhelming chance of some discrete win/lose quantity, but a continuous quantity instead. And not only that, but I think that same time as Mollema was too big of an assumption. And like others said, Mollema, and others who got slowed down by the crash didn't get any bonus... It's a rule that is applied selectively, and I don't feel confident to say that the result would have been the same if it was only Mollema crashing either. So yes, I don't think the real results mimic reality accurately enough. I feel much better about the 3km rule because there is far more certainty in sprints. I also don't like it because the impacts of the crash transfer over to the next day (i.e. potentially having more energy for the next day, while in other sports this effect is much smaller)... If there was more certainty in the outcome, and more guarantee that the rule would be applied consistently, I'd be more open to siding with it. Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 06:43 L_Master wrote:On July 15 2016 06:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^ I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening. Which they did the opposite of today... It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over". I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that? Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton? I would look at the situation from the other perspective. Yes, organizer fucked up, but now we will just make an assumption of how things would go to give these two people a podium for the stage they would have won. I don't think it's fair to the other riders... The ones who crashed didn't earn that time (if they re-do a play in other sports, they earn that point/time/etc). I actually gave the exact train example in a post 1-2 pages back. Neutralization is good in this case (for cycling), because the outcome of the race would be massively compromised, while Froome and Porte are just 2 out of 198. Of course, all I'm saying is as my opinion and I'm not stating them as facts. As for the barrier example, I think that's something that the peloton would deal with themselves and wait, but if they didn't, it once again for me depends on how many people it compromises. If 2-3 take the wrong turn, sucks for you that you're racing in a race where the organizer isn't more careful, but it is what it is. If it's like 10-15+ people, then yeah, some kind of neutralization is needed. In esports I see teams get screwed very often by organizers, and it's the same thing, they don't gift you wins because statistically you're going to win (unless it's accidently gg'ing or something where there is irrefutable certainty), however there it can be handled with replaying far more often.
Without the crash, the result would have been even better for Froome, Porte and Mollema, Valverde was leading the pursuit and he is not as strong as them. But basically, we can sum up your "philosophical" position (I don't think you have any idea about what is philosophy...) is "I am fucking salty about this "favoritism", yeah that sucks for them but it is unfair for blabla despite the fact that the rules have been applied (I didn't even bother to read the rulebook LOL) but there are tacits rules on the peloton in which I have no idea about but it does not matter because I just want to see Froome and Porte fucked" I'm all right? Rules have been applied, deal with it and deal with the fact that there are even more carefully applied for those who can play the general and make a reclamation about it.
More accurate comparaisons could be done but I will not enter in your silly game.
|
What a fucking disgrace man. Richie Porte can't catch a god damn break from the cycling gods and he gets very little respect and coverage during the race. He was outclimbing everyone and equal with Froome, yet I'm still hearing about Barguil yoyoing, or Tejay Van Garderen doing nothing special in the chase group.
I'm all for cycling coverage, but some of the bias is so damn obvious lol. Still love Liggett and Sherwin though.
What a terrible finish to what was shaping up to be a great finish with GC implications.
|
Dutch cycling talkshow was very negative, some of then even wanting Froome to get penalised for breaking the rules by running without a bike and in general they feel Mollema was robbed by the time-juggling and don't understand why Quintana gets compensation. Saying cycling shouldn't become a jury sport, as once you start changing times there is no end to it. Also brought up earlier examples that didn't get time compensation.
They also saw Sky leader Brailford running into the jury office immediately, so he influenced the entire process.
I think that's a harsh way to look at it, and it would feel very silly for Froome losing time like this, but I do agree this creates a difficult precedent for future races.
One interesting thing they noted was that the ASO cut the finish short for safety reasons for the riders (due to wind). But with this they actually fail to provide safety as 21km of supporters get condensed into 15km and they don't even provide normal basic fences or extra gendarmes to keep the hordes away. So he thought they only cut it short because the podium with sponsor wasn't wind proof enough and hardly give a shit about rider safety because safety costs extra money.
|
On July 15 2016 05:44 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't think you understood my statement:
"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.
A little bit more, and you will find the agression of Merckx a beautiful and authentic moment of the tour. I still have no clue about what is your damn spirit of the sport (not focused around the best performance and self surpassing and probably the same as your philosophy). Anyway, this situation is not even comparable to Hoogerland and Flecha's, there were not aiming the general classement (they did not even try a reclamation because they did not care), just to win the stage exactly like Greg at the San Sebastian classic where he got pushed by a car but I don't consider this as authentic, he didn't, Poulidor didn't either when he got percuted by a moto and the organizer too, you're pretty much the only one who thinks apply the word "authentic" to this, what you're saying is completely ridiculous, the problem with this past cases is that there are no way of coming back but in 3 weeks race for the ppl who want to win the general, they are. Yes, what happened to Porte in the previous stages is unfair but it is "fate", what happened here is not fate, it is caused by 1) a bad organization and 2) a straight incapacity to continue the race by having too much spectators, happily, there are rules about it (yeah these rules hurt you a lot :D ). Btw, Froome and Porte situation was not "authentic" in the definition of "whose who are not you, basically, everyone except you", indeed they were very specials, it is not common to see a stage shortened nor seeing spectator provoking a fall and you're seriously deluded by thinking that a spectator pushing a cyclist still makes this race authentic (I would be curious to heard Merckx 's advice about the handsome authenticity of the stage and "spirit of the sport" where he received a punch and lost against Thévenet) don't know how far you will push the grotesque but I am not even curious, I have nothing more to say to you, what you said disgusts me far too much.
|
On July 15 2016 08:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Dutch cycling talkshow was very negative, some of then even wanting Froome to get penalised for breaking the rules by running without a bike and in general they feel Mollema was robbed by the time-juggling and don't understand why Quintana gets compensation. Saying cycling shouldn't become a jury sport, as once you start changing times there is no end to it. Also brought up earlier examples that didn't get time compensation.
They also saw Sky leader Brailford running into the jury office immediately, so he influenced the entire process.
I think that's a harsh way to look at it, and it would feel very silly for Froome losing time like this, but I do agree this creates a difficult precedent for future races.
One interesting thing they noted was that the ASO cut the finish short for safety reasons for the riders (due to wind). But with this they actually fail to provide safety as 21km of supporters get condensed into 15km and they don't even provide normal basic fences or extra gendarmes to keep the hordes away. So he thought they only cut it short because the podium with sponsor wasn't wind proof enough and hardly give a shit about rider safety because safety costs extra money.
Well certainly the rider who's most upset about the situation is Dutch, so definitely could be bias.
My impression from watching Eurosport and NBC was that the commentators had a similar perspective to me, as well as the analysts at the tour. Just talking about whether Froome will get DQ for running, you're not allowed to leave your bike, etc etc. Here it's kind of the opposite, the guys who have been following the sport for quite a while here tend to be against it. It's a bit too much of an idealist view for me, but I think it goes to show that it becomes rather easy to argue both positions, given that the stances on this are quite split between the popular TdF figures.
It's just interesting to me, because Nibali was DQ'ed for holding onto the team car, Nizzolo for swerving to the side during a sprint... So even on that end, I'd be interesting to hear the rationale for the 200-300?~ running that Froome did being okay, even though I don't mind it that much.
@stilt Not interested in having an emotionally charged debate, sorry.
|
On July 15 2016 07:51 darthfoley wrote: What a fucking disgrace man. Richie Porte can't catch a god damn break from the cycling gods and he gets very little respect and coverage during the race. He was outclimbing everyone and equal with Froome, yet I'm still hearing about Barguil yoyoing, or Tejay Van Garderen doing nothing special in the chase group.
I'm all for cycling coverage, but some of the bias is so damn obvious lol. Still love Liggett and Sherwin though.
What a terrible finish to what was shaping up to be a great finish with GC implications.
Richie Porte is soooo fucking unlucky these past few years it's insane. And it's not unlucky as in crashing a lot (which can have an element of rider error) but it's just complete random stuff like mechanicals at the most comically bad times, or shit like today when he was attacking and gets a faceful of motorcycle.
Still, I feel pretty confident Porte is going to finish second or third. I don't think he will, but if he gains time on Froome from here, I will really feel bad for the guy. I think people tend to say "Porte isn't proven/always has bad days in GTs", but I don't think that's the best assessment.
That was true for Richie pre 2015. But Porte starting in late 2014 and on really stepped up his game. He went from being a really solid rider to one of the best stage racers out there. His failures in GTs before 2015 can be chalked up to "not good enough". Analyzing from 2015 on we only have one data point, the Giro, where he was immediately out of it on that fateful day 2 or 3 where he had the 10km mechanical + wheel change penalty. Don't think that should be held against the rider when assessing potential. Aside from that he was dominant stage racer in 2015, and good in 2016.
I knew Kruijswijk was damn good from the 2015 Giro, and he showed it this year even if he did fuck it up in the end, and I've been on the Porte bandwagon since 2015. Just keep an eye on Porte, I guarantee he will start showing his class in GTs over the next year or two.
|
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. They should have put barriers, they did not, it was a mistake, can't be undone. Altering the results, giving time bonuses etc. however are totally in their control and they mishandled that miserably. All I'm going to remind is;
1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed? 2) On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: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? Show nested quote +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. Oh yeah? Well why did only Froome get time bonus and Mollema not? Cuz Mollema made up for it with his own effort and Froome got his bike smashed? Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility. 3) Past incidents of similar fashion saw no such treatment. People simply said shit happens.
Moral of the story: Only and only reason they got time compensation is that yellow jersey was caught running up a mountain stage and millions watched it live. Biggest unfairness right here is on Mollema who looked best to me yesterday. Fuck you Asso, fuck you race comitee.
|
|
Froome built another huge lead. Quintana seems to be struggling weird. A few cyclists almost got blown off by the cross winds...
|
|
|
|