2012 Tour de France - stage 3: Orchies - Boulogne-sur-Mer (197km)

[cycladianpirate]

I think Wiggins' antics on this stage were just lame. He didn't even try.

I'm all for the 3 k rule, but not if you are not affected by the crash at all and use it as an opportunity to save energy.

Did you see Samu Sanchez getting royally screwed by the 3km rule last year? If you get caught behind a crash (through no fault of your own) but aren't deemed to be "in" the crash then it's tough luck. Result - make absolutely sure you're deemed to be in the crash.

You and I are spectators. For these guys its their job. They make a rule - the riders work to the rule. It's their JOB.

 

[Trofinios]

@TweeterSagan

Funny parody account

Haha, some really funny tweets.

 

[Hawkwood]

Did you see Samu Sanchez getting royally screwed by the 3km rule last year? If you get caught behind a crash (through no fault of your own) but aren't deemed to be "in" the crash then it's tough luck. Result - make absolutely sure you're deemed to be in the crash.

You and I are spectators. For these guys its their job. They make a rule - the riders work to the rule. It's their JOB.

Exactly, and the times you gain from the rules are normally balanced by the times you lose by them.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think Wiggins' antics on this stage were just lame. He didn't even try.

I'm all for the 3 k rule, but not if you are not affected by the crash at all and use it as an opportunity to save energy.

A number of riders just strolled in.
Not sure whether or how you could police it, do away with the 3km rule altogether, or just mark it down to good fortune.

Over the course of 3 weeks, luck is a huge factor.

He was hardly lucky, last year.
Maybe he'll suffer the same fate this year, so that the race can become the focus.

 

[Froome19]

I think Wiggins' antics on this stage were just lame. He didn't even try.

I'm all for the 3 k rule, but not if you are not affected by the crash at all and use it as an opportunity to save energy.

You try your best to win the race and a rider who skirts the boundaries of the rule book will most likely be given a better chance of winning .

 

[Arnout]

Did you see Samu Sanchez getting royally screwed by the 3km rule last year? If you get caught behind a crash (through no fault of your own) but aren't deemed to be "in" the crash then it's tough luck. Result - make absolutely sure you're deemed to be in the crash.

You and I are spectators. For these guys its their job. They make a rule - the riders work to the rule. It's their JOB.

That was different. Sanchez was already in the back, together with Contador, before the 3km rule. Then a crash happened with a km to go, riders taking it easy, and Sanchez and Contador were visibly held up by people cruising in because of the 3km rule, but Sanchez and Contador's time was not corrected.

So what would've happened without the 3km rule? Probably the same crash. Clearly the 3km does not prevent crashes in these finishes as everyone wants to be in the front regardless. Without the 3km rule there would be the same crash, people would've been back on their bike and over the finish in no-time, Sanchez and Contador wouldn't be held up by riders that were de facto finished and everyone would've gotten his or her (?) real time.

Much better scenario and I don't see any point in both the rule itself and in the liberal execution of the rule.

 

[El Pistolero]

3km rule should never apply to uphill finishes. That simple...

 

[Arnout]

Guys don't you agree. 3km rule is to make sure gc riders don't interfere with the sprint in flat stages (as there is no such rule in the mountains).

In an uphill finish GC guys will be there regardless. Hence, there is no point for this rule.

 

[Coramoor]

3km rule should never apply to uphill finishes. That simple...

i somewhat agree with that, hesjedal as well as a few others were really aggressive(on the right side) at the end to ensure they didn't get chopped down and still they all almost got taken out by the crash, the mentality that you can just coast to a stop behind a crash and get the same time is somewhat mind-boggling

 

[Hawkwood]

That was different. Sanchez was already in the back, together with Contador, before the 3km rule. Then a crash happened with a km to go, riders taking it easy, and Sanchez and Contador were visibly held up by people cruising in because of the 3km rule, but Sanchez and Contador's time was not corrected.

So what would've happened without the 3km rule? Probably the same crash. Clearly the 3km does not prevent crashes in these finishes as everyone wants to be in the front regardless. Without the 3km rule there would be the same crash, people would've been back on their bike and over the finish in no-time, Sanchez and Contador wouldn't be held up by riders that were de facto finished and everyone would've gotten his or her (?) real time.

Much better scenario and I don't see any point in both the rule itself and in the liberal execution of the rule.

What sport is there where spectators don't get steamed up by the rules? My partner plays golf, I can't believe some of the rules in that!

 

[thehog]

You pretty much summed up what I was trying to state.

Everything catches up eventually. Tomorrow, in a week, in a month. You slack off, you ease up when you should be working, it will catch up with you and if someone remembers what you've done and wants to punish you, then you'll get smacked.

Remember Evans wheel change in 2009 in the Vuelta? Sanchez had already fallen back that day. Valverde and Gesink (I think he was still in the race at the time) punished them. Evans never got that lost time back. These guys will not wait for Brad on another day. You should never bank on the race commissares. He needs to get his placement near the end of stages sorted out. Should have been right next to EBH.

Guys don't you agree. 3km rule is to make sure gc riders don't interfere with the sprint in flat stages (as there is no such rule in the mountains).

In an uphill finish GC guys will be there regardless. Hence, there is no point for this rule.

It used to be the 1km rule but that was causing more crashes than good as everyone fought to stay near the front until 1km to go.... Now it's 3 and it's too much. I'd say go for 2km.

 

[Froome19]

Guys don't you agree. 3km rule is to make sure gc riders don't interfere with the sprint in flat stages (as there is no such rule in the mountains).

In an uphill finish GC guys will be there regardless. Hence, there is no point for this rule.

There is a much bigger chance of crashing in the last 3km in a stage involving some type of sprint than there is with a mountain stage.

 

[JA.Tri]

Guys don't you agree. 3km rule is to make sure gc riders don't interfere with the sprint in flat stages (as there is no such rule in the mountains).

In an uphill finish GC guys will be there regardless. Hence, there is no point for this rule.

concur

@ Roundabout ta

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Guys don't you agree. 3km rule is to make sure gc riders don't interfere with the sprint in flat stages (as there is no such rule in the mountains).

In an uphill finish GC guys will be there regardless. Hence, there is no point for this rule.

Depends how 'uphill'. If there is a chance of rider congestion then it makes sense to have that rule.

 

[cycladianpirate]

That was different. Sanchez was already in the back, together with Contador, before the 3km rule. Then a crash happened with a km to go, riders taking it easy, and Sanchez and Contador were visibly held up by people cruising in because of the 3km rule, but Sanchez and Contador's time was not corrected.

So what would've happened without the 3km rule? Probably the same crash. Clearly the 3km does not prevent crashes in these finishes as everyone wants to be in the front regardless. Without the 3km rule there would be the same crash, people would've been back on their bike and over the finish in no-time, Sanchez and Contador wouldn't be held up by riders that were de facto finished and everyone would've gotten his or her (?) real time.

Much better scenario and I don't see any point in both the rule itself and in the liberal execution of the rule.

I wasn't debating the rule itself but rather criticising those who choose to blame riders that "play by the rules" - unless, of course, it happens to be a rider they like.

Like football fans shouting for a penalty, you see what you want to see. And the only difference between football fans and pro cycling fans is that the former tend to focus their efforts on supporting the team they like and the latter tend to focus their efforts on vilifying the riders they don't.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Any word on Gerrans ?

Obviously he finished but looks like a nasty tumble he had.

 

[BillytheKid]

The rule makes no sense on any rated uphill finish.

 

[Normandy]

what the fck dude?

he just won porsche and earned 2nd tdf victory,i repeat for great succes - he won porsche in a bet

i would pull my pants down if i could

the moment there is a colourfull guy in the peloton who makes it little bit entertaining some old fart has to come and jump on his balls to spoil the fun,stop being a party pooper,TdF is the biggest festival in cycling season,lets not act like everyone has to be boring guy always acknowledging his oponents every second of his life

+1 There seems to be a lot of people who do not appreciate humour on this forum. Sagan is the only rider who has made this tour interesting to date

 

[Catwhoorg]

In the Giro, when riders went down and didn't even cross the line, but were awarded the same time, was there this level of disdain for the 3km rule ? No?

I think today everyone should have been at the time a few places further back rather than the +1s, but thats my judgement call.

The moment a crash, any crash happens, everyone in the group should be assured of the same time. Much safer to brake and pull up, rather than veering left and right, possibly causing more issues.

 

[UlleGigo]

I love how this has turned to defending the rule rather than defending Wiggins.

At the end of the day its pretty obvious that the only reason we are even discussing this is because Wiggins is not good enough to stay at the front on a 700m hill.

Certain riders can't win GTs because they are just not cut out for it. Wiggins is one of them. Gesink is another fwiw.

 

[Lanark]

At the very least the people who were behind the crash should have been set back to 8 seconds, that was the group they were in. It's pretty stupid that guys like Evans, Nibali and Mollema take time on guys like Gesink, VDB and others, but don't benefit from it because of a crash they didn't have anything to do with. If there wasn't a crash they would have taken a couple of seconds of their competitors.

The 3km rule is fine in bunch sprints, it keeps gc-men out of the front, but it shouldn't completely neuter any uphill sprint that would have had small gaps without a crash.

 

[El Pistolero]

+1 There seems to be a lot of people who do not appreciate humour on this forum. Sagan is the only rider who has made this tour interesting to date

Sagan fanboyism is getting ridiculous here. I would say Chava has been more interesting so far

 

[c&cfan]

+1 There seems to be a lot of people who do not appreciate humour on this forum. Sagan is the only rider who has made this tour interesting to date

there's no rational explanation to not mention cancellara (especially) and chav. that's stupid.

 

[Wobbly knees]

Fascinating stage.

Hats off to Sagan, what a talent, wow blew them all out of the water at the end!

Shame about some of the catty comments from the posters on here, i really wonder if some of you have ever ridden a bike before, let alone raced one!

How can you knock the young kid for celebrating, clearly he's impetuous in his celebration, but so what.... this is the biggest bike race on the planet, cut him some slack for christs sake, he'll grow up in due course.

As for the wiggo thing, again catty or what! From the replay he got pushed into from behind. I defy any of you to stay in your cleats after a difficult stage like that and the fact that he had nowhere to go. Wiggo was off his bike checking it out after some he got clattered, live with it.

All i can say is great stage.... and carry on you drama queens!!

 

[Hawkwood]

I love how this has turned to defending the rule rather than defending Wiggins.

At the end of the day its pretty obvious that the only reason we are even discussing this is because Wiggins is not good enough to stay at the front on a 700m hill.

Certain riders can't win GTs because they are just not cut out for it. Wiggins is one of them. Gesink is another fwiw.

I thought the only reason we were discussing it was because the anti-Wiggins brigade waded in. I happen to agree with you on the point of Wiggins not being cut out for GTs, but who knows how the next couple of weeks will pan out.