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

Page 79 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 12, 2013
981
0
0
Re: Re:

Poursuivant said:
Vasilis said:
If Quintana was held up by the incident and somehow assumed that he would therefore get the same time as the group he was in, then why did Valverde say that these things just happen and that it's too bad for Froome?
Good point
Because he is Valverde the whiner.
He expects the teams of JRod, Dan Martin and Van Garderen to pull the same in Bagneres de Luchon descent because they apparently want to win the Tour the same.
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
It's kind of been lost after what happened later, but how strong was Poels today?! Chased down a hard attack from Valverde and three reasonaby significant digs from Quintana, despite looking absolutely on his limit for about 15 minutes. Henao didn't even get the chance to do anything before Froome went, because Poels was so strong.
Poels has absolutely good days and days that he's just an average rider. I hope that he realises he isn't a GT contender since he keeps on saying he's hoping he gets his chance to go for a GT one day.
Yeah, he's definitely lacking in consistency, but that was really impressive. Thomas cracked without even taking a turn, and he put almost everyone else right on the limit. Hopefully after LBL he'll have got the taste more for classics and focus on them; it doesn't matter so much if you have the odd bad day there, as long as you have enough good days to challenge for wins.
 
Re:

Fergoose said:
Minor point but it annoys me we missed the crash live as we were focussing on the four or fifth rider to almost free wheel over the line after being unsuccessful in the breakaway. This happens on every mountain stage and is a curious bit of decision making by the race TV director when you are in the middle of live GC battle. Annoys the hell out of me.
Agree
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re:

Fergoose said:
Minor point but it annoys me we missed the crash live as we were focussing on the four or fifth rider to almost free wheel over the line after being unsuccessful in the breakaway. This happens on every mountain stage and is a curious bit of decision making by the race TV director when you are in the middle of live GC battle. Annoys the hell out of me.
absolutely!

and another TV crime we often see: after each surge at the front of a group/peloton they immediately switch to the rear and show some noname dropouts instead of keeping and eye on the action
 
DFA123 said:
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
So, at the very least, his teammate got held up by the crash. Still a disadvantage that he was affected by, no?
Yeah Gerrans crashed out so Yates should get s.t. as Mollema as well.
Well, that's kind of the point I'm making. If you start making these arbirtary decisions, where do you draw the line? Valverde getting held up, losing his rhythm and having to accelerate back to the front undoubtedly had an impact on Quintana, given that he ended up pacing him for most of the last km.

Now the UCI have opened up this can of worms, how can they quantify this kind of thing?
I think there is obvious difference between a rider that gets obviously held up or a rider that lost time because he got dropped.
 
Jul 12, 2013
981
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Poursuivant said:
Vasilis said:
If Quintana was held up by the incident and somehow assumed that he would therefore get the same time as the group he was in, then why did Valverde say that these things just happen and that it's too bad for Froome?
Good point
I think Movistar would be more than happy to accept the result on the line. Delighted in fact.

But if you're giving Froome the time of the group he was in when the incident happened, you have to do the same for Quintana and Valverde.
Not Valverde. Quintana Yes. But not valverde.
He was clearly some seconds back to the Aru Yates Quintana group when they were at the accident point.
 
Re: Re:

Poursuivant said:
Fergoose said:
Minor point but it annoys me we missed the crash live as we were focussing on the four or fifth rider to almost free wheel over the line after being unsuccessful in the breakaway. This happens on every mountain stage and is a curious bit of decision making by the race TV director when you are in the middle of live GC battle. Annoys the hell out of me.
Agree
Agreed as well. :) I get that they want to show their respect to riders who have slugged it out in the break, but if there is GC action at the same time, hard luck.
 
Re: Re:

Poursuivant said:
jyrgen said:
Not Happy with giving Porte and Froome the same time as Bauke without compensating the bunch behind with 10 sec at least. They got stuck behind the chaos with cars etc when Bauke could just go ahead
You do know Mollema crashed don't you? You do know Porte Froome and Mollema had a 23" gap at time of crash, and it was rising?

The level of vitriol in here for all the haters coming out of the woodwork is mad, it makes me want Froome to win all the more.
This not wanting troome to win the tour narrative is misguided. Froome already has 2 tours. Do you think any haters care particularly if he has 2 or 3? Maybe if contador was still in the race, but he isn't and Quintana doesn't have 1/10th of the support.

Froome is likely going to win either way. This isn't about froome winning the tour or not.
 
Re: Re:

Ataraxus said:
DFA123 said:
Poursuivant said:
Vasilis said:
If Quintana was held up by the incident and somehow assumed that he would therefore get the same time as the group he was in, then why did Valverde say that these things just happen and that it's too bad for Froome?
Good point
I think Movistar would be more than happy to accept the result on the line. Delighted in fact.

But if you're giving Froome the time of the group he was in when the incident happened, you have to do the same for Quintana and Valverde.
Not Valverde. Quintana Yes. But not valverde.
He was clearly some seconds back to the Aru Yates Quintana group when they were at the accident point.
Is that clear? He looked on the back of the group to me. And how do you know he didn't just slow down or brake because he saw the chaos up ahead.
 
Jul 12, 2013
981
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
DFA123 said:
Poursuivant said:
Vasilis said:
If Quintana was held up by the incident and somehow assumed that he would therefore get the same time as the group he was in, then why did Valverde say that these things just happen and that it's too bad for Froome?
Good point
I think Movistar would be more than happy to accept the result on the line. Delighted in fact.

But if you're giving Froome the time of the group he was in when the incident happened, you have to do the same for Quintana and Valverde.
Not Valverde. Quintana Yes. But not valverde.
He was clearly some seconds back to the Aru Yates Quintana group when they were at the accident point.
Is that clear? He looked on the back of the group to me. And how do you know he didn't just slow down or brake because he saw the chaos up ahead.

http://www.steephill.tv/players/eitb/?title=Last+4+Km+of+Stage+12&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=4239388&yr=2016

17:18 onwards
 
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
So, at the very least, his teammate got held up by the crash. Still a disadvantage that he was affected by, no?
Yeah Gerrans crashed out so Yates should get s.t. as Mollema as well.
Well, that's kind of the point I'm making. If you start making these arbirtary decisions, where do you draw the line? Valverde getting held up, losing his rhythm and having to accelerate back to the front undoubtedly had an impact on Quintana, given that he ended up pacing him for most of the last km.

Now the UCI have opened up this can of worms, how can they quantify this kind of thing?
I think there is obvious difference between a rider that gets obviously held up or a rider that lost time because he got dropped.
I don't agree. Why take into account what happened to Quintana after passing the incident, but not Froome?
Inthat last km or so, Froome had a mavic bike, but couldn't clip or change gear and lost loads of time messing around. He could have come in half a minute earlier if he had been a bit more composed. Why is his incompetence there not taken into account?
 
I rewatched the stage, Quintana shortly before the crash was always on the second position (behind Yates) or third (behind Yates and Aru) in the chasing group. Valverde was right at the back, he was last in this group. Then, at the moment of the crash, there is Valverde who is dropped from this group. Quintana was with Aru/Yates and the rest of the chasing group at the moment of the crash, without a doubt.

Then he lost 7 seconds at the finish line to Yates, I don't know why.
 
Re: Re:

Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
 
Jul 9, 2016
129
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
you got to be kidding me. yeah he was gonna pass everybody and win by 5 minutes
 
Re: Re:

saganboss said:
DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
you got to be kidding me. yeah he was gonna pass everybody and win by 5 minutes
Don't make a ridiculous straw man argument.
 
DFA123 said:
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
So, at the very least, his teammate got held up by the crash. Still a disadvantage that he was affected by, no?
Yeah Gerrans crashed out so Yates should get s.t. as Mollema as well.
Well, that's kind of the point I'm making. If you start making these arbirtary decisions, where do you draw the line? Valverde getting held up, losing his rhythm and having to accelerate back to the front undoubtedly had an impact on Quintana, given that he ended up pacing him for most of the last km.

Now the UCI have opened up this can of worms, how can they quantify this kind of thing?
I think there is obvious difference between a rider that gets obviously held up or a rider that lost time because he got dropped.
I don't agree. Why take into account what happened to Quintana after passing the incident, but not Froome?
Inthat last km or so, Froome had a mavic bike, but couldn't clip or change gear and lost loads of time messing around. He could have come in half a minute earlier if he had been a bit more composed. Why is his incompetence there not taken into account?
It would've been if he crashed himself or just a mechanical. Now there was a moto accident, something the riders had absolutely 0% fault in. Another moto cracked Froomes wheel.

If he had a mechanical and went beserk like he did today then he would've got his time back. Thing is that the times got reset because of a crash caused by poor organisation and not by the riders fault.
 
Jul 9, 2016
129
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
saganboss said:
DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
you got to be kidding me. yeah he was gonna pass everybody and win by 5 minutes
Don't make a ridiculous straw man argument.
but he didn't even finished in aru group so how can you say that
 
''ProCyclingStats.com ‏@ProCyclingStats 2m2 minutes ago
. @TrekSegafredo, team of @BaukeMollema filed protest. Disagree with the decision of the jury. #TDF2016''


it's gonna be a long night
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
saganboss said:
DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
you got to be kidding me. yeah he was gonna pass everybody and win by 5 minutes
Don't make a ridiculous straw man argument.
To be honest I think you are grasping at straws here.
 
Re:

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?
It was the organizers who took out Froome. The moto broke his frame..
 
Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
I don't agree. Why take into account what happened to Quintana after passing the incident, but not Froome?
Inthat last km or so, Froome had a mavic bike, but couldn't clip or change gear and lost loads of time messing around. He could have come in half a minute earlier if he had been a bit more composed. Why is his incompetence there not taken into account?
It would've been if he crashed himself or just a mechanical. Now there was a moto accident, something the riders had absolutely 0% fault in. Another moto cracked Froomes wheel.

If he had a mechanical and went beserk like he did today then he would've got his time back. Thing is that the times got reset because of a crash caused by poor organisation and not by the riders fault.
Sure, I accept that. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but certainly the crash wasn't the riders fault. But Quintana was undoubtedly held up by the crash as well. I don't think it's then fair to ignore the impact it had on him and his team-mate. Is there even footage of that group going past the incident? Perhaps Yates and Aru raced off and Quintana couldn't get on because he's not as explosive. A situation that wouldn't have happened without the incident.

Even if something like that didn't happen, he came to an almost complete stop and would have had to put in an anaerobic effort to get up to speed again. For a guy who had already made several attacks on the climb, that would have been a big effort, perhaps burning his last match, and may have contributed to him being dropped. Again, something caused by the incident.

Whether or not Quintana was directly involved in the crash, it clearly had an impact on the last 1.5km or whatever it was of the race. It meant that he couldn't ride at or just above threshold, as presumably he would have liked to without the incident.
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
DFA123 said:
saganboss said:
DFA123 said:
Ataraxus said:
Clear as mud. Looked to me like he was racing back on to the group. What is the time gap from him to the back of the group at that point; how would that be calculated?

The fact is it is all guesswork. Valverde's the fastest finisher in that group by far; he could claim he could have pulled out another five seconds on the sprint for the line if he hadn't been held up. A massive can of worms has been opened and there is no satisfactory solution.
you got to be kidding me. yeah he was gonna pass everybody and win by 5 minutes
Don't make a ridiculous straw man argument.
To be honest I think you are grasping at straws here.
Imo there are two solutions. 1) Take the GC gaps at the time of the incident for everyone. 2) Take the result as it was on the line (my preferred option).

Taking gaps for some at the time of the incident and others on the line is wrong. All of the riders in Froome's group and Quintana's group were impacted by the incident in some way - and it should certainly not be up to the organisers to speculate on how much each rider may or may not have been inconvenienced - particularly not based on the rather incomplete evidence that we have.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY