2016 Tour de France, Stage 21: Chantilly → Paris (113km)

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Billie said:
Dan Martin tweeted he got a wheel from another team which results in 2 minute fine.
Only if he got it from a rider, I think.

12.01.400.8.2: 200 per offence and 2', 5' and 10' penalty and elimination + 200 from 4th offence. Any other licence holder: 400

So the any other licence holder should mean it is not only when the assistance is between riders.

More gc action today than yesterday :eek:
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a *** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
 
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
The rule got enough attention because of the Porte incident that if UCI deemed it a bad rule they should have dropped it but they didn't so surely they have to enforce it.
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
Well maybe the commissars will chalk it up as one of the many things that they didnt see on this Tour.
 
Oct 10, 2015
2,059
0
0
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
It's a sensible rule, can't have riders from opposing teams giving mechanical assistance to eachother and same goes for team cars helping out riders from opposing teams.
 
StryderHells said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
It's a sensible rule, can't have riders from opposing teams giving mechanical assistance to eachother and same goes for team cars helping out riders from opposing teams.
I actually think in some cases teams may help each other, but that happens in back of the pack. Teams have two cars so in a mountain stage team A may help riders from team A and B in a breakaway, then both have cars behind the peloton and then team B helps riders from both teams in gruppetto.
 
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
StryderHells said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
It's a sensible rule, can't have riders from opposing teams giving mechanical assistance to eachother and same goes for team cars helping out riders from opposing teams.
Why?
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
TMP402 said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.
Happens all the time. Normally great camaraderie away from the front of the race between all the teams and team cars. Always loved this video of Kenny Van Hummel fighting the time cut with 2 other riders from 2009.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTPKaeFbcA8
 
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
TMP402 said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.

Food and drinks and medical help between teams is allowed because of the consequences of not giving this help can have on health of riders.

Mechanical assistence is not allowed.
 
Richeypen said:
TMP402 said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.
Happens all the time. Normally great camaraderie away from the front of the race between all the teams and team cars. Always loved this video of Kenny Van Hummel fighting the time cut with 2 other riders from 2009.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTPKaeFbcA8
The actual wording of the rule was posted at the point of the Porte "debacle". Riders and teams are allowed to render one another minor services such as gels and bidons, however outright mechanical assistance is not allowed as this is interpreted as being for reasons of collusion.

This is an eminently sensible rule, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's there to stop collusion. And although it was relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, the Porte-Clarke wheel swap was collusion. Unless Simon Clarke is the kind of guy who would hand his wheel over to everybody. We went through the myriad reasons why Tiralongo riding for Contador or Horner pulling Tejay up Alpe d'Huez in 2010 were not punishable but Clarke giving Porte his wheel was at the time, no need to go through it again.
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
It in no way should be a black and white issue. Anything that stops races being decided by mechanicals should be applauded. Yes the Clarke Porte situation was collusion but what exactly is wrong with that?
 
Billie said:
TMP402 said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.

Food and drinks and medical help between teams is allowed because of the consequences of not giving this help can have on health of riders.

Mechanical assistence is not allowed.
And extremely bad luck throwing you out of GT contention could result in depression. Lack of mechanical assistance can also have consequences on health of riders if that's the reason
 
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
PremierAndrew said:
Billie said:
TMP402 said:
Richeypen said:
Hopefully nothing comes of it. Its a ****** rule that should have been got rid of after the Porte debacle. Common sense should surely rule in these circumstances.
I interpret it as preventing a big team having a secondary team also at WT level, giving the big team racing and technical support. I've seen a team car give bottles to rival riders a number of times (eg the team car of one rider in a two-man break giving supplies to both) and it's never seriously punished, though.

Food and drinks and medical help between teams is allowed because of the consequences of not giving this help can have on health of riders.

Mechanical assistence is not allowed.
And extremely bad luck throwing you out of GT contention could result in depression. Lack of mechanical assistance can also have consequences on health of riders if that's the reason

what kind of bs is this :D
 
Re:

Richeypen said:
It in no way should be a black and white issue. Anything that stops races being decided by mechanicals should be applauded. Yes the Clarke Porte situation was collusion but what exactly is wrong with that?
Oh, come off it. The exact point is that while nobody likes to see a GC settled by one, a mechanical can - and does - happen to anybody, and it hits everybody equally. Third party assistance, however, is not equal; Clarke wouldn't have handed his wheel over to Aru, or Contador, or Landa, or anybody else in that GC battle, therefore it's an unfair advantage and merits a penalty. Pretty straightforward. Sure, in this particular instance it wasn't especially relevant to the overall outcome, but then if the same thing happens later in the race and is penalized, it opens up a whole new set of issues. It's a perfectly justified rule to have in place and it was a crystal clear infringement of the rule, therefore it required punishing. The real question, to me, is whether the required penalty as it stood at the time - 2 minutes being the minimum punishment - ought to be reconsidered. Not whether the act should be an infringement, because it absolutely by all means should.

Besides, the issue here was that it was stupid because it was so unnecessary. The race would have been no more decided. Michael Matthews was in that chase group, so Porte could have grabbed a wheel from a domestique, Clarke could have helped him ride back and have had plausible deniability because Matthews was there, no problem.
 
Re:

Richeypen said:
It in no way should be a black and white issue. Anything that stops races being decided by mechanicals should be applauded. Yes the Clarke Porte situation was collusion but what exactly is wrong with that?
I agree. And I wouldn't call the Porte - Clarke thing collusion. It of course happened because they were fellow countrymen but I see nothing wrong with that. People these days berate on these sort of stuff too often, portraying such harmless things as diabolical nationalism. ''Can't have that!''

It was inconsequential.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY