At the top, where the others crashed, Gilbert rode on the right hand side, where there was plenty of space, unlike Sagan et al. http://i.imgur.com/eCSG15j.jpg
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Which is pointless. If you want to avoid a crash due to riding too close to the barrier it makes no sense to sit right on the wheel of someone who does just that. That he fell is his own fault as much as Sagan's.Volderke said:GvA fell because Sagan fell, not because he was ever close to the barriers. GvA always kept half a meter distance. Check the video.jflemaire said:Naesen fell because he was riding too close to the barriers. Same for GVA and Sagan. I have clear memories of Gilbert riding alone in the dead centre of the road. Not saying he never rode close to the public but it seems to me he was doing it far less often.Volderke said:Naesen fel because Sagan made that jacket move with his shifter.wayahead said:It really seems like Naesen fell independently of Sagan. Like he didn't see those sticking out barriers feet.shalgo said:Naesen hits the same jacket that Sagan hit and independently falls--he is actually going down before Van Avermaet does.
That's Van Avermaet's problem then. If you choose to ride directly behind a rider who is taking a risk by riding close to the barriers you willingly take that same risk. There would have been no risk if he had been in front of Sagan, if he wasn't able to do that, that too is his problem.Flamin said:No. Sagan was putting the hammer down. Not one single rider would chose the other side in that situation. 100% Sagan's fault.
kingjr said:That's Van Avermaet's problem then. If you choose to ride directly behind a rider who is taking a risk by riding close to the barriers you willingly take that same risk. There would have been no risk if he had been in front of Sagan, if he wasn't able to do that, that too is his problem.Flamin said:No. Sagan was putting the hammer down. Not one single rider would chose the other side in that situation. 100% Sagan's fault.
No, but you could surely ride on the right side on the Kwaremont and expect to win.Flamin said:kingjr said:That's Van Avermaet's problem then. If you choose to ride directly behind a rider who is taking a risk by riding close to the barriers you willingly take that same risk. There would have been no risk if he had been in front of Sagan, if he wasn't able to do that, that too is his problem.Flamin said:No. Sagan was putting the hammer down. Not one single rider would chose the other side in that situation. 100% Sagan's fault.
Riding in the peloton is also a risk. That's bike racing. Can't ride 50m behind the peloton all day and expect to win. Doesn't mean you're at fault when someone in front of you makes a judgemental error.
kingjr said:No, but you could surely ride on the right side on the Kwaremont and expect to win.Flamin said:kingjr said:That's Van Avermaet's problem then. If you choose to ride directly behind a rider who is taking a risk by riding close to the barriers you willingly take that same risk. There would have been no risk if he had been in front of Sagan, if he wasn't able to do that, that too is his problem.Flamin said:No. Sagan was putting the hammer down. Not one single rider would chose the other side in that situation. 100% Sagan's fault.
Riding in the peloton is also a risk. That's bike racing. Can't ride 50m behind the peloton all day and expect to win. Doesn't mean you're at fault when someone in front of you makes a judgemental error.