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

Page 68 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Fight.The.Power said:
The Hitch said:
Ramira said:
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.
Fans who boo Froome are probably booing him for the wider fraud that he is, nothing to do with this incident. He's been booed before, that's why sky had to invent the urine narative to make the fans who boo him out to be bad
Different year same s h i t eh Hitch . . . . Don't know why you live in London if you hate the English so much ???
What a narrow minded post.
Are you part of the EDL or something? What does pointing out that the majority of cycling fans legitimately dislike Froome have to do with hating the English? :eek:
 
Re:

markene2 said:
Porte getting checked for a knee injury
Damn, hope it's nothing serious. Would fit right in with his luck this Tour though.

I'm not a fan of Porte, but I hate seeing him getting all this bad luck. I'd like to see what he can do if things go his way for a full 3 weeks. To me any time a rider emerges it enriches the sport, and I think this could (have been) that moment for Porte.
 
Jul 14, 2016
2
0
0
As a neutral viewer of the tour this is probably a fair result. However what bothers me is the free interpretation of the rules. Because if Mollema was the one running up that hill the results would not be changed. This is just because it is Froome. This TDF is really sad to watch. When someone else falls nobody waits. However when two nobody's from Sky fall everyone waits.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
I think had Froomes bike not been broken, the times would have stood. The fact neutral service bike was almost unrideable and team car blocked, because there was no barriers to hold the fans back, which incidentally caused the issue in the first place. I think taking times at 1km is good. Arguably Quintana 'might' have not lost as much time had Froome crashed, so Froome not advantaged, others on the attack like Porte & Mollema, obviously disadvantaged along with anyone who might have been attacking out of the Quintana group at the end. You can't please everybody. At least you know things are as least unfair as they can make it with the final decision. No team's going to appeal, it could be any GC rider, not Froome.
I'm very doubtful they would have applied the same neutralization had it been someone like Aru or Martin with the broken bike. Double standard for the yellow jersey again.
I agree, i'm in the Alpes next week. I'll throw a blow-up doll with a very baggy green mankini in front of Quintana, which will get wrapped around his chain and go home feeling like I got my money's worth and enjoyed the fact sport is won by spectators and crashed motorbikes and not the riders!
 
Nobody is denying that Froome lost time through no fault of his own. In fact, even with the neutralisation he still loses, because the 3 up front were set to gain even more time on Quintana and the rest of the peloton.

But if throughout history it's been '*** happens, deal with it', why has it suddenly changed to 'that's not fair, we'll give you your time back'?
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Jan the Man said:
That it happened in the last KM is a factor in my opinion- notwithstanding the polemics concerning the 3km rule not generally applying for the mountain stages that is the obvious difference between this incident and a lot that have been quoted in the pages beforehand.

For example if this had happened on the flat stage with 1km to go and with identical gaps at the time of the crash nobody would back against the decision of awarding froome and porte s.t as Mollema at the end.

People's will always be clouded by favouritism toward one rider or another. In my view it is the correct and just decision from fairness point of view.
It is a just decision. Froome lost time through no fault ofhis own.

The only problem is its never been applied before, and never will be again.

What's outrageous isn't the decision, its the fact that when it happens to anyone else its - cest la vie, such is bike racing. But when it happens to the race favourite who is backed by a global broadcasting super company, suddenly fairness needs to be taken into account.

We've always been taught what happens on the road, happens, can't change it, and the vast majority of people up in arms about this, wouldn't even blink if it had happened to anyone but their favourite.
Possibly but they did apply the rule to Adam Yates even though it was a mountain stage when the KM banner fell down and it is a pretty unique situation i.e. within 3km of a mountain stage. Can't recall where Guerini was on Alpe d'Huez
 
Re:

qwertyuser said:
As a neutral viewer of the tour this is probably a fair result. However what bothers me is the free interpretation of the rules. Because if Mollema was the one running up that hill the results would not be changed. This is just because it is Froome. This TDF is really sad to watch. When someone else falls nobody waits. However when two nobody's from Sky fall everyone waits.
It's not because it's Froome. But you (and many others) may very well be right it's because it's the yellow jersey.

But protecting the yellow is as much, if not more, of a tradition in the tour as spectator interference.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
It is a just decision. Froome lost time through no fault ofhis own.

The only problem is its never been applied before, and never will be again.
Yea, I think this is a good comment.

For once I think the right decision has been taken though.

Yet ofc we look back and it seems unfair to all those who had the wrong decision taken just because "tradition" or whatever people are calling it.

The answer is not to then continue enforcing the wrong decision (the rules) and letting fans etc influence the race just cause. The answer is surely to change things so NO riders get *** over in the future.

Yes this incident has been treated differently just because of the profile of the event but the amount of people in this thread who think it's great to *** riders over is just dumb.

Though I do appreciate half of those people are just Froome haters and don't really care.
 
Re: Re:

Jan the Man said:
The Hitch said:
Jan the Man said:
That it happened in the last KM is a factor in my opinion- notwithstanding the polemics concerning the 3km rule not generally applying for the mountain stages that is the obvious difference between this incident and a lot that have been quoted in the pages beforehand.

For example if this had happened on the flat stage with 1km to go and with identical gaps at the time of the crash nobody would back against the decision of awarding froome and porte s.t as Mollema at the end.

People's will always be clouded by favouritism toward one rider or another. In my view it is the correct and just decision from fairness point of view.
It is a just decision. Froome lost time through no fault ofhis own.

The only problem is its never been applied before, and never will be again.

What's outrageous isn't the decision, its the fact that when it happens to anyone else its - cest la vie, such is bike racing. But when it happens to the race favourite who is backed by a global broadcasting super company, suddenly fairness needs to be taken into account.

We've always been taught what happens on the road, happens, can't change it, and the vast majority of people up in arms about this, wouldn't even blink if it had happened to anyone but their favourite.
Possibly but they did apply the rule to Adam Yates even though it was a mountain stage when the KM banner fell down and it is a pretty unique situation i.e. within 3km of a mountain stage. Can't recall where Guerini was on Alpe d'Huez
Guerini won the stage though, he was not far from the finish, no rule was applied
 
Re: Re:

WillemS said:
The Hitch said:
Ramira said:
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.
Fans who boo Froome are probably booing him for the wider fraud that he is, nothing to do with this incident. He's been booed before, that's why sky had to invent the urine narative to make the fans who boo him out to be bad
So, you're claiming that story was made-up?
Brailsford and Froome have been caught red handed making up stories before. There is no proof that anyone threw urine at Froome so, since we are told that absence of proof is proof of absence, we have to take the view it was made up no?
 
Re:

qwertyuser said:
As a neutral viewer of the tour this is probably a fair result. However what bothers me is the free interpretation of the rules. Because if Mollema was the one running up that hill the results would not be changed. This is just because it is Froome. This TDF is really sad to watch. When someone else falls nobody waits. However when two nobody's from Sky fall everyone waits.
Exactly. I have no idea why peloton decided to wait because Froome had to pee in that situation. The racing was on and had been so for the past 50 kilometers.
Is peloton afraid of Froome and Team Sky?
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
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 ?
Posting about the photo. I'm assuming the impact was in an unusual force vector. If the layup is not designed to handle force in that vector, then it fails. This is the reason carbon isn't so great. It's nice until it breaks though!
froome was using the lighter version of the dogma F8. it can only be used by cyclists that weight less then 70 kg. it's a more fragile frame.
 
Re: Re:

Jan the Man said:
The Hitch said:
Jan the Man said:
That it happened in the last KM is a factor in my opinion- notwithstanding the polemics concerning the 3km rule not generally applying for the mountain stages that is the obvious difference between this incident and a lot that have been quoted in the pages beforehand.

For example if this had happened on the flat stage with 1km to go and with identical gaps at the time of the crash nobody would back against the decision of awarding froome and porte s.t as Mollema at the end.

People's will always be clouded by favouritism toward one rider or another. In my view it is the correct and just decision from fairness point of view.
It is a just decision. Froome lost time through no fault ofhis own.

The only problem is its never been applied before, and never will be again.

What's outrageous isn't the decision, its the fact that when it happens to anyone else its - cest la vie, such is bike racing. But when it happens to the race favourite who is backed by a global broadcasting super company, suddenly fairness needs to be taken into account.

We've always been taught what happens on the road, happens, can't change it, and the vast majority of people up in arms about this, wouldn't even blink if it had happened to anyone but their favourite.
Possibly but they did apply the rule to Adam Yates even though it was a mountain stage when the KM banner fell down and it is a pretty unique situation i.e. within 3km of a mountain stage. Can't recall where Guerini was on Alpe d'Huez
Don't recall exactly where myself, but I think it was within 3km as well. The thing about that though was Guerini won the stage. And considering he was in a break and no GC aspirations (or chance) it didn't matter in the end.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,475
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Fight.The.Power said:
The Hitch said:
Ramira said:
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.
Fans who boo Froome are probably booing him for the wider fraud that he is, nothing to do with this incident. He's been booed before, that's why sky had to invent the urine narative to make the fans who boo him out to be bad
Different year same s h i t eh Hitch . . . . Don't know why you live in London if you hate the English so much ???
What a narrow minded post.
Are you part of the EDL or something? What does pointing out that the majority of cycling fans legitimately dislike Froome have to do with hating the English? :eek:

Because I can remember you making almost identical remarks about Wiggins?

Perhaps that's what it is . . . .?
 
Gigs_98 said:
Since everyone is talking about the Moto incident nobody has mentioned something else which is very interesting. Quintana was absolutely horrible, being dropped by riders like Yates, Bardet, Aru and Meintjes
^This. He could only give a half-hearted attempt to cover the attack from Mollema and he got tailed off from the second group. Could've been worse if Valverde had not been there for a tow.
 
I cant understand anyway why people dislike Froome. He doenst lie, he is kind person, he showed a big determination annd love for cycling by came from Africa to Europe. He was passing his childhood with David Kinjah and always very woeeied for ative africa, he had to lose 2 GT been the stronger by the jerarchy of his team...ad he had to fight agaits the past of hiss sport...

I thik people will love him in the future, whe people realized the big champion he is. but now he has that bad luck.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Jan the Man said:
That it happened in the last KM is a factor in my opinion- notwithstanding the polemics concerning the 3km rule not generally applying for the mountain stages that is the obvious difference between this incident and a lot that have been quoted in the pages beforehand.

For example if this had happened on the flat stage with 1km to go and with identical gaps at the time of the crash nobody would back against the decision of awarding froome and porte s.t as Mollema at the end.

People's will always be clouded by favouritism toward one rider or another. In my view it is the correct and just decision from fairness point of view.
It is a just decision. Froome lost time through no fault ofhis own.

The only problem is its never been applied before, and never will be again.

What's outrageous isn't the decision, its the fact that when it happens to anyone else its - cest la vie, such is bike racing. But when it happens to the race favourite who is backed by a global broadcasting super company, suddenly fairness needs to be taken into account.

We've always been taught what happens on the road, happens, can't change it, and the vast majority of people up in arms about this, wouldn't even blink if it had happened to anyone but their favourite.
This is exactly one of the reason we love bike racing. Anything can happen.
Last year Fulgsang was taken out by a moto on a mountain stage. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/motorbike-driver-ejected-from-tour-de-france-after-fuglsang-crash/ No neutralisation.
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Brailsford and Froome have been caught red handed making up stories before. There is no proof that anyone threw urine at Froome so, since we are told that absence of proof is proof of absence, we have to take the view it was made up no?
Since is there's a total absence of proofs for your claims, I just consider your claim to be absent.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY