2016 TdF, Stage 12: Montpellier → Mont Ventoux (178km)

Page 63 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

RattaKuningas said:
This decision makes the situation even worse. At first you had 2.5 riders affected by the decision (Mollema managed to keep going quickly so I give 0.5) but now the whole peloton is affected by this and there are even more people who are not happy. Terrible decision.
I believe this decision gets us closest to what the results would have been without the crash. Therefore I reckon it was probably the correct decision.

But in the end the focus has to be on preventing this from happening again. This is not a decision that should have had to be made, because it's not a situation that should ever happen.
 
Aug 23, 2014
8
0
0
Re:

geargbest said:
Unfurtunate but this is cycling, Contador crashed and got ill without that they would all be fighting for 2 and 3 place anyway.
Hah, that's a good one, a bit of humour at a time like this is smart. Very funny
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
BigMac said:
Alexandre B. said:
Very disappointed with the neutralization.

Commissaries messed with this sport's history.
lel.
Contador lost time in 2011 Tour because a moronic fan, he didn't get same time.
And? Your point?

Doesn't mean it was the correct decision back then. Time change. Fortunatly we humans have this capacity to correct mistakes, have critical thinking instead of basing every decision on [unfair] precedents. Else there would be no point in having comissaires.
 
Apr 7, 2014
153
0
3,830
What was the gap between the two groups at the moment of the crash? Because I think that rather to lose REAL time on the road Froome gets VIRTUAL time to Quintana.
 
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
Pantani Attacks said:
What rule have they invented to prevent Froome from being DQ'd for moving without a bike?

Inb4 they penalise Aru but not Froome
Your allowed to do so if your team car is blocked to reach neutral service, the Sky car was stuck behind the jury's.
I don't think Froome should be DQ'd, but neutral service was behind him, so he was running away from the neutral service.
 
Re:

RattaKuningas said:
This decision makes the situation even worse. At first you had 2.5 riders affected by the decision (Mollema managed to keep going quickly so I give 0.5) but now the whole peloton is affected by this and there are even more people who are not happy. Terrible decision.
Yeah, the more I think about, the more unfair it seems. Would even have been fairer to just pretend the stage never happened, and keep the time gaps the same as this morning.

Or just let the result stand - like it has in similar situations in the past.
 
Re:

RattaKuningas said:
This decision makes the situation even worse. At first you had 2.5 riders affected by the decision (Mollema managed to keep going quickly so I give 0.5) but now the whole peloton is affected by this and there are even more people who are not happy. Terrible decision.
But this alters the time to best approximate how the stage would've occurred if not for the negligence of the organizers and the actions of the 'fans'. Any alteration is going to be artificial, but this seems the most sporting solution to me, but YMMV...
 
Jul 18, 2014
187
0
0
Anyone have any idea how much of a gap there was between Froome and Quintana at the time of the crash? and what the final time gap was at the neutralization?
 
Re:

TMP402 said:
Dumb fans boo Froome. Sky's charm offensive undone through no fault of their own.
Don't think it's that simple. The dumb fans who hate Froome for no reason will keep hating him, sure.

But real fans realise this wasn't his fault. And shouldn't hold the decision against him. You can hardly call for someone to act like a champion and complain when he tries to get back almost two minutes he lost through no fault of his own.
 
Re: Re:

Oliwright said:
deValtos said:
Well basically any decision will piss off a lot of people.

Organizers should've done better organizing. I would not like to be them right now.
How would giving Froome, Porte and Mollema the same time piss people off? It's the minimum.

Quintana had lost time.
In any other case of mechanical or accident on a MTF, they don't give crap. Why should they now?
 
Re: Re:

Gloin22 said:
The Hitch said:
In 2011 stage 1 Contador's group got taken out by a spectator on a flat stage. He lost 1.20 and without that loss he would have been on the podium.

Why should spectators taking out riders suddenly be neutralised if its never been before?
Because times change??? 2011... different juries, different opinions.

And essentially, Tour PR. Tour would be mockery across the world and media if they let that stand like that.
So in other words, 1 rule for some, another rule for others. Why didn't they give Stybar the Paris Roubaix stone in 2013 when the fan took him out?
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Re: Re:

Fight.The.Power said:
bigcog said:
DFA123 said:
spalco said:
Froome's bike had a broken fork apparently:

Hmmm, I don't think I'll be buying a pinarello any time soon. Was hardly a high speed pile up.
I always thought titanium was a better bet :D
Isn't the guy who took this photo a thief ?
What's the source for the stolen bike story?

I don't think the bike was actually stolen. For one, where would a spectator take it?
 
Absolute bs is this the new rule now?

Contador in 2011 and Armstrong in 2003 were both taken out by spectators.
The race wasnt neutralised. There was no lets stop and take the time from there.

All a rider has to do now is go all all out at the start of a summit finish, get someone to take them halfway up and the race will be neutralised as that point under the new rules.
 
Re: Re:

Stelvio said:
MatParker117 said:
Pantani Attacks said:
What rule have they invented to prevent Froome from being DQ'd for moving without a bike?

Inb4 they penalise Aru but not Froome
Your allowed to do so if your team car is blocked to reach neutral service, the Sky car was stuck behind the jury's.
I don't think Froome should be DQ'd, but neutral service was behind him, so he was running away from the neutral service.
He ran forward to clear a path for the motorcycles and cars to get through and probably also to get away from the crowd.
 
I understand why people are discussing if the neutralization was the right decision but I really don't get why people discuss if it's a different situation than for example in San Sebastian last year because back then it was the fault of the moto and this time a spectator. Thats completely beside the point. It only matters if the rider was affected by something which wasn't his own fault and in both situations that was the case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS