Ranks up there with Qatar for awfulness? Somebody is forgetting Copenhagen and Zolder.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
Ranks up there with Qatar for awfulness? Somebody is forgetting Copenhagen and Zolder.
Yes but why does that matter? Some days there's bad weather, some days it's scorching hot. Each rider does well in different circumstances. The weather made the race tougher but I don't see how that made the race worse. We got to see who are the real tough guys in the peloton. Küng and Pedersen wouldn't have been on the podium on a nice and sunny day. They live for these conditions and made the most of it. Others who prefer different weather conditions had a bad day. Tough luck, no race can suit every single rider.Because of the horrible weather. Better weather and I suspect a lot who dropped out not only would have finished but would have been in the mix at the end. I suspect there were a lot who would have preferred to not even bother starting in the first place due to the weather.
So we should judge the race based on how well the favorites did? This race still had 10+ guys that could have won: Trentin, Pedersen, Küng, Moscon, Sagan, Valgren, Van der Poel, Van Avermaet, Kristoff, Fuglsang, Colbrelli, Stybar, Betancur, and so on. Maybe some of them weren't favorites ahead of the race and others that were favorites had a tough day. So what? That's just what happens in sports.Invalid no technical descents and no bad conditions to lead to any of that. Also it was well known that last year's course had maybe 3-5 riders who could actually win. This year's course was open to where at least 20 or MORE riders SHOULD have had a chance, but the vast majority were flat out never given the opportunity due to the weather. Totally different type of race. We will NEVER know how good the race could have been.
So they should have called it off? Good luck with that....
It was perfectly suited for Pedersen, Trentin and Küng! I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Just because the pre-race favorites didn't all do well the race was horrible? That's silly.It was a horrible race with horrible weather and should not have been allowed to go on. They are just very LUCKY there weren't any serious injuries due to the horrendous weather. Ranks with Quatar as how bad it was.
Actually I'd say it didn't suite ANYONE at all. It SHOULD have been good for Gilbert, but he's one that abandoned. Should have been good for MvdP, but obviously was NOT. Thus proving your premise is wrong and it was horrible for everyone. I also expect that we have riders having to end their seasons due to illness from these conditions. The ones walking away earlier have a better chance of not ending up sick.
Copenhagen was truly awfulRanks up there with Qatar for awfulness? Somebody is forgetting Copenhagen and Zolder.
So we should judge the race based on how well the favorites did? This race still had 10+ guys that could have won: Trentin, Pedersen, Küng, Moscon, Sagan, Valgren, Van der Poel, Van Avermaet, Kristoff, Fuglsang, Colbrelli, Stybar, Betancur, and so on. Maybe some of them weren't favorites ahead of the race and others that were favorites had a tough day. So what? That's just what happens in sports.
Yes but why does that matter? Some days there's bad weather, some days it's scorching hot. Each rider does well in different circumstances. The weather made the race tougher but I don't see how that made the race worse. We got to see who are the real tough guys in the peloton. Küng and Pedersen wouldn't have been on the podium on a nice and sunny day. They live for these conditions and made the most of it. Others who prefer different weather conditions had a bad day. Tough luck, no race can suit every single rider.
Where does the UCI go from here...even a first time bike racing watcher could see that after punctures ,mechanicals ,crashes,bike changes, car support and urine breaks there was far far far more motorpacing or dodge drafting than in the infamous U23 travesty..
not to mention way more video footage of the " infractions ".
The most dangerous things to observed were the following distances..on wet roads no less and UCI marked car stopping or slowing in strange stupid places..
And then what? Should we never hold any races when it rains? The weather was bad but it wasn't apocalyptic. It wasn't windy like Gent-Wevelgem when Paolini won, there wasn't a snow storm like when Ciolek won Milano-Sanremo. It was a tough day out there but nothing these riders have never faced before.Should have postponed it.
And then what? Should we never hold any races when it rains? The weather was bad but it wasn't apocalyptic. It wasn't windy like Gent-Wevelgem when Paolini won, there wasn't a snow storm like when Ciolek won Milano-Sanremo. It was a tough day out there but nothing these riders have never faced before.
But that's cycling!Sagan had exactly zero chance to win as soon as the group with the eventual winner got away. So sorry, but most of those riders didn't have a chance to win. The moment that group got away the race was over. There was no one left with teammates that could chase. Dry weather it's highly likely more riders and more riders with teammates are there to chase.
So in the future we'll only race with temperatures between 15 and 25 degrees Celsius because what if riders get hypothermia or heat stroke or dehydrated, no wind gusts above 25 kph because that might cause crashes, no rain as that might cause crashes, no UV index above 4 as that might cause skin cancer in the future. Sounds like a great idea!This kind of weather causes injury and illness. The weather ensured a LOT of riders walked away from the race to preserve their health. So it didn't make the race harder, it ensured a lot of riders wanted no part of it and basically just had to decide when their health started to mean more than the race.
Should have postponed it.
Oh, come on. You call these conditions insane? I've seen stages in the snow in Giro and TdF. L-B-L in 1980 in the snow won by Hinault was insane. The heat in the Vuelta can be insane. The wind gusts in Gent-Wevelgem in 2015 blew riders of their bikes. That was crazy.
This was just rain, but because it lasted all day, it wore the riders down. This kind of survival is the definition of heroism. I'm sure everyone recovered within a couple of hours.
Yes, it shows it was a tough race. Every cycling fan has been praying for a wet Roubaix for years. Tough = entertainment.Not when roads are flooding. The fact that so many walked away saying it was the weather says something.
Luca Paolini and Gerard Ciolek will be breaking out the violins, I'm sure.Not when roads are flooding. The fact that so many walked away saying it was the weather says something.
Her favourites, and yes. The only way Koronin could be more vocal is if Quintana won lolI have a feeling that Koronin hates races which his favourite riders don't win.
Can we all please ignore big troll Koronin and focus on this great race (and whole Championship) and ‘madman Mads’?
So then why not have a race in the middle of a hurricane. Obviously rider safety isn't important so racing in the middle a hurricane would definitely make it hard and selective.
Between this and Quintana's echelon ability the last few weeks have been hilariousKoronin went from having an opinion about the race to acting as a troll.
Rider safety was not at risk today. The parts of the course that were under water WERE NOT RACED. We have seen many scenarios over the years where the riders have refused to race or where race/stagehas been neutralised because of concerns over rider safety. That did not happen today. If the riders were unhappy they would have made it clear to the commissaires.
And no one is suggesting the peloton should ride in a a hurricane, You are just being ridiculous now.