2019 Giro d'Italia, stage 8: Tortoreto Lido - Pesaro 239 km

[King Boonen]

Yeah, that hard right at the end looks typical Giro silliness if I’m honest. Really don’t see the need for it.

 

[Salvarani]

Meh

 

[Stelvio]

Re:

Holm actually made a pretty good point before; maybe the complaint isn't about the descend, but about that random turn at the end.

The road along the sea looks a bit narrow for a possible sprint finish. The road they turn onto is wider so unless it's really wet shouldn't cause more trouble than any other crazy italian finish (link).

The argument from Dimension Data was that the descent was dangerous - if I understood correctly they wanted GC time taken before the descent. It's almost like they see it as their right to have a sprint finish today.

 

[RedheadDane]

Sorry… I need to went.

Ugh! I don't like all this… talk... I don't want races to be neutralised all the time (and I don't think they are), but I definitely don't want the riders to crash either. I just wish the riders would be better at just... deciding to slow down if that's what they want to. Instead of all the GC riders going down to the commisaire's car to tell him that "we don't really want/dare to ride for time in the finale...", then just... don't!

 

[King Boonen]

It’s really, really unfair to put the burden of safety on the riders. That doesn’t happen in any other line of work and it shouldn’t happen here. Neutralising the descent looks silly unless the conditions make it dangerous, doesn’t look any worse than other roads they ride, Milano-Sanremo for example.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: 2019 Giro d'Italia, stage 8: Tortoreto Lido - Pesaro 239

Stupid decision imo. I mean I get this kind of stuff on stages where no time gaps are expected anyway but here? There might be attacks and splits in the peloton so taking the time at the 3km mark just seems super gimmicky to me. Like, imagine Nibali attacks on the descent gets caught before the end but gains time because he was in front at the 3km mark.

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

Sorry… I need to went.

Ugh! I don't like all this… talk... I don't want races to be neutralised all the time (and I don't think they are), but I definitely don't want the riders to crash either. I just wish the riders would be better at just... deciding to slow down if that's what they want to. Instead of all the GC riders going down to the commisaire's car to tell him that "we don't really want/dare to ride for time in the finale...", then just... don't!

So they should just concede time?

This is professional sport.

 

[Climbing]

Heavy rain, front of the race apparently.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

Sorry… I need to went.

Ugh! I don't like all this… talk... I don't want races to be neutralised all the time (and I don't think they are), but I definitely don't want the riders to crash either. I just wish the riders would be better at just... deciding to slow down if that's what they want to. Instead of all the GC riders going down to the commisaire's car to tell him that "we don't really want/dare to ride for time in the finale...", then just... don't!

So they should just concede time?

This is professional sport.

If all the GC riders agree to take it easy, they're not really conceding time. I don't think they care about losing a few seconds to Ackermann.
But I'm thinking less "conceding time", and more "just not sending their team to the front - among the sprinter-teams - and push the speed."
But at the same time, a rider who's terrible at descending should be aware of that and not try to push it. He can always try to regain time on the climbs.

There really should be a way to make a clear-cut rule instead of this... mess...
I hope they don't neutralise. I hope nobody crashes (badly).

 

[Climbing]

If there is a real danger, sure we don't want to put riders at risk stupidly.
A wet fast descent it's just part of the sport.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

I don't see how they could take the times at 3 km to go unless they have the timing equipment there

 

[RedheadDane]

If there is a real danger, sure we don't want to put riders at risk stupidly.
A wet fast descent it's just part of the sport.

That's kinda my point. Sometimes the riders are putting themselves at risk stupidly.
What if there is a... Schleck-style descender in the bunch? Why not just tell him to "dude, take it slow? There are mountains ahead! You don't have to worry about losing a few seconds!"
We're not expecting non-climbers to try to gain time on the climbs, why should we expect non-descenders to try to gain time on the descends? Why should the non-descenders think they should try to gain time on the descends?

 

[Climbing]

Oh nice passage!

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Descending is a skill, but the penalty for not being skilled in a sport should be a loss of time or points, not injury or worse.

The best solution is a stage design from the outset that is resiliant enough to be safe in all conditions. I thibk we all agree that having the rug pulled out from us is the real issue on these neutralizations.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

Descending is a skill, but the penalty for not being skilled in a sport should be a loss of time or points, not injury or worse.

Exactly! And you definitely shouldn't be punished by injury or worse because you're in a bunch with someone else who can't descend!

 

[SafeBet]

Re:

I'm not sure what you guys have heard, but from what I understand the only decision the jury has made thus far is to apply the 3km rule, as if this was a standard sprint stage.

 

[Bushman]

Re:

If there is a real danger, sure we don't want to put riders at risk stupidly.
A wet fast descent it's just part of the sport.

That's kinda my point. Sometimes the riders are putting themselves at risk stupidly.
What if there is a... Schleck-style descender in the bunch? Why not just tell him to "dude, take it slow? There are mountains ahead! You don't have to worry about losing a few seconds!"
We're not expecting non-climbers to try to gain time on the climbs, why should we expect non-descenders to try to gain time on the descends? Why should the non-descenders think they should try to gain time on the descends?

It’s not about gaining time, it’s about not missing out if there are splits. And of course the gc riders who are less confident in their abilities downhill are entitled to ride at the front just as much the ones who are skilled descenders. What exactly is your point even?

 

[Pantani_lives]

Quintana could have won the Giro amidst this confusion.

 

[Bushman]

Re: Re:

Sorry… I need to went.

Ugh! I don't like all this… talk... I don't want races to be neutralised all the time (and I don't think they are), but I definitely don't want the riders to crash either. I just wish the riders would be better at just... deciding to slow down if that's what they want to. Instead of all the GC riders going down to the commisaire's car to tell him that "we don't really want/dare to ride for time in the finale...", then just... don't!

So they should just concede time?

This is professional sport.

If all the GC riders agree to take it easy, they're not really conceding time. I don't think they care about losing a few seconds to Ackermann.
But I'm thinking less "conceding time", and more "just not sending their team to the front - among the sprinter-teams - and push the speed."
But at the same time, a rider who's terrible at descending should be aware of that and not try to push it. He can always try to regain time on the climbs.

There really should be a way to make a clear-cut rule instead of this... mess...
I hope they don't neutralise. I hope nobody crashes (badly).

So what do you suggest? Every rider who aims for a top spot in the GC will sit in a circle and agree to not race today because there is a tricky descent? What if Nibali knows that Lopez isnt comfortable in these kind of stages and wants to gain time today before the mountains come around?

Your suggestion couldnt be farther from reality, really

 

[Leinster]

Re:

Descending is a skill, but the penalty for not being skilled in a sport should be a loss of time or points, not injury or worse.

The best solution is a stage design from the outset that is resiliant enough to be safe in all conditions. I thibk we all agree that having the rug pulled out from us is the real issue on these neutralizations.

I think the best solution should be to have alternative finish routes in the event of weather making a particular element of a finish unsafe. I’m sure the descent and hairpins looked like a great idea in dry conditions. For the 2nd biggest race in the calendar, surely enough time could have been spent to check what it could look like on a rainy day? If only just asking local cycling clubs about it.

 

[RedheadDane]

What I'm suggesting is that… yes... everyone of course has the right to go to the front? But do they have to? Why not let the guys who know how take the lead? Might minimise the risk.
Besides; maybe the non-descenders just need to accept that they might lose time on the descends and then just take it back on the climbs.
For me the problem wouldn't so much be Nibali attacking on the descend (then he wouldn't be mixed in with all the other teams) but a rider like, say… Lopez... telling his team to go to the front, even though he might not be the best descender.

Essentially what I'm saying is that riders should be aware of what they're good at - and use that to their advantage - but also what they're bad at.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure what you guys have heard, but from what I understand the only decision the jury has made thus far is to apply the 3km rule, as if this was a standard sprint stage.

I am pretty sure this is the case. No reason to be otherwise, except if Teejay is in the race and it's held in the US of A.

 

[Jagartrott]

I would love it if a GC contender put his team at the front the last 40 km and then attack on the descent. If your good at going downhill, you should use this weapon at every opportunity. Plus, if you take the lead, you're much less in danger of crashing because of someone else.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure what you guys have heard, but from what I understand the only decision the jury has made thus far is to apply the 3km rule, as if this was a standard sprint stage.

I am pretty sure this is the case. No reason to be otherwise, except if Teejay is in the race and it's held in the US of A.

So, it's the 3 K rule, not the 3.2 K rule?
And I'm still saying… technically no rule saying that a guy like Lopez can't just be all "Whoops! I crashed!" within the last three kilometres.

 

[Carols]

Cycling is a sport for hard men. The normal 3km rule is good, I've seen to many people lose jerseys etc when it was 1km. But it's an outdoor sport and aside from truly unusual weather or really dangerous conditions just let them Ride! That's my 2 cents .