2014 Giro d'Italia, Stage 4: Giovinazzo - Bari (112 Km)

[Arredondo]

But why only neutralize the last lap? Shouldn't the whole stage have been neutralized, and then those who wanted to race could attack from the beginning, and not only in the last lap.

I'm totally agreeing with that.

Now it looked really amateuristic and strange.

 

[The Hitch]

people will always hate and not understand, this isn't the 80s anymore riders safety and power actually means something I am glad they decided not to race, but also understood why they allowed them to sprint, Bari paid for a finish and got one, but those surfaces get so slick.

I'm amazed you didn't find a way to blame crashes on doping and celebrate how neutralization of a stage by an Anglo team is proof of clean cycling.
Chapeau. Must have been hard to stop yourself for once.

 

[Geraint Too Fast]

I'm amazed you didn't find a way to blame crashes on doping and celebrate how neutralization of a stage by an Anglo team is proof of clean cycling.
Chapeau. Must have been hard to stop yourself for once.

It would be good if you could stop showing off that chip on your shoulder once in a while.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

it would be good if you could stop showing off that chip on your shoulder once in a while.

+999999999

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It's real, but I think you read it wrong

It means Polanc (and Malori) lose(s) 31 seconds (Carretero and Keisse lose a little more), while Scarponi, Aru, Cataldo and Bol(last rider to cross the line) all are in the same time as Bouhanni.

If you see on other stages they write the time loss for everybody in the group and not just the first rider when there is a gap

I believe stage times were recorded normally, only it won't have any effect on general classification.

Neither are quite right: in other stages they present the results the same way, which is why this was less than useful.

Scarponi etc crossed the line at the beginning of the last lap in the same peloton as Bouhanni, so they get the same time as him. In the neutralised last lap they were overtaken by Polanc, although he was 31" adrift with 1 lap remaining when times were taken. That is why Polanc finished ahead of Scarponi, but was officially slower. (Similar to the 3 km rule, but extended in length, and without any requirement to have been effected by crash or mechanical)

But the time gaps at 8.1 km to go are applied to GC: after stage 3, Polanc was at 1:34, now he is at 2:05.

 

[movingtarget]

It would be good if you could stop showing off that chip on your shoulder once in a while.

It's always the Anglos without a doubt ! It's okay for the smaller stage races to have a circuit race but I would like to see them gone from grand tours. But I would like to see team time trials gone as well. An out and back course is ok but then the fans don't see much and the town pays for what it wants. But if the UCI is okay with circuit races they have to ensure that the courses are safer. The last lap on this stage was going to be a problem wet or dry.

 

[Netserk]

Neither are quite right: in other stages they present the results the same way, which is why this was less than useful.

Scarponi etc crossed the line at the beginning of the last lap in the same peloton as Bouhanni, so they get the same time as him. In the neutralised last lap they were overtaken by Polanc, although he was 31" adrift with 1 lap remaining when times were taken. That is why Polanc finished ahead of Scarponi, but was officially slower. (Similar to the 3 km rule, but extended in length, and without any requirement to have been effected by crash or mechanical)

But the time gaps at 8.1 km to go are applied to GC: after stage 3, Polanc was at 1:34, now he is at 2:05.

Check again. I'm totally correct. In other stages they write the gap after each rider in the group, not just the first. There's nothing incorrect in my post.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Check again. I'm totally correct. In other stages they write the gap after each rider in the group, not just the first. There's nothing incorrect in my post.

So looking at today's results:

51 Stefano Pirazzi (Ita) Bardiani-CSF 0:01:15
52 Kanstantsin Siutsou (Blr) Team Sky
53 Mauro Finetto (Ita) Neri Sottoli - Yellow Fluo
54 Jarlinson Pantano (Col) Colombia
55 Samuel Sanchez (Spa) BMC Racing Team
56 Michael Rogers (Aus) Tinkoff-Saxo

Is it your contention that Sioutsou, Finetto, Pantano, Sanchez and Rogers finished in the same time as Ulissi, and yet behing Pirazzi? If not, you need to retract and apologise for your arrogance.

 

[Netserk]

So looking at today's results:


Is it your contention that Sioutsou, Finetto, Pantano, Sanchez and Rogers finished in the same time as Ulissi, and yet behing Pirazzi? If not, you need to retract and apologise for your arrogance.

You call me arrogant? Really?

So jens_attacks ask a question, I give him the correct answer nicely, you then (incorrectly) says I got it wrong, and because I then say I am totally correct, you call me arrogant? For real? Perhaps it would be arrogant if you answered jens, and I then put you down.

~~~

So to show who is correct and who is not:

http://www.gazzetta.it/Giroditalia/2014/classifiche/it/t_05_class.shtml?lang=it

You were saying?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it could be that some actually look at the official results?

Surely you will now retract and apologise for your arrogance?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You call me arrogant? Really?

So jens_attacks ask a question, I give him the correct answer nicely, you then (incorrectly) says I got it wrong, and because I then say I am totally correct, you call me arrogant?
...

Surely you will now retract and apologise for your arrogance?

Jens attacks posted the results as displayed on CN, which you repeated in replying to him. You then said "If you see on other stages they write the time loss for everybody in the group and not just the first rider when there is a gap." The only reasonable assumption as to who "they" refers to in this is the publisher that JA (and indirectly, you) quoted: ie Cycling News.

Cycling News do not "write the time loss for everybody in the group and not just the first rider"; that is why your comment was not "totally correct" as you claim, but is, as I said, not quite right.

If you choose to use pronouns to refer to a party that has not been referred to previously in the thread, you do a disservice to your reader.

I'll leave it to your conscience whether you have the humility to acknowledge your error and the confusion that arises if you write that unclearly.

And yes, I do consider it arrogant to assert that you were correct when you have evidently not taken the care to check what you wrote.

 

[barmaher]

Please don't take this debate to pm, as we're all dying to find out who gets the upper hand in this debate.

 

[Netserk]

Jens attacks posted the results as displayed on CN, which you repeated in replying to him. You then said "If you see on other stages they write the time loss for everybody in the group and not just the first rider when there is a gap." The only reasonable assumption as to who "they" refers to in this is the publisher that JA (and indirectly, you) quoted: ie Cycling News.

Cycling News do not "write the time loss for everybody in the group and not just the first rider"; that is why your comment was not "totally correct" as you claim, but is, as I said, not quite right.

If you choose to use pronouns to refer to a party that has not been referred to previously in the thread, you do a disservice to your reader.

I'll leave it to your conscience whether you have the humility to acknowledge your error and the confusion that arises if you write that unclearly.

And yes, I do consider it arrogant to assert that you were correct when you have evidently not taken the care to check what you wrote.

Irony much.

Please show me where I wasn't correct.

I have showed I was correct, but you just can't get the humble pie down

 

[Netserk]

Please don't take this debate to pm, as we're all dying to find out who gets the upper hand in this debate.

Sorry for clogging the thread, so you can't continue with the other ongoing discussion in it

Or is it because I force you to read it? Surely if none of the current discussion in the thread interests you, you do have the will power not to read it?