37th Vuelta a San Juan Internacional (2.1)

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Well, we know he did it, there's picture-evidence, so...
Honestly, I just feel sorry for Alaphilippe here. He's trying to win a bike race, and now he might not get a chance to, because one of his - supposedly older and smarter - teammates decided to be an idiot.

We know he did the stupid pose. We don't know wether or not he touched her. Anyways does someone remeber Peter Sagan? He actually did grope a women. And got away with it being the big name he is

To be honest it doesn't really matter if he touched her or not. It is very humiliating and unacceptable.

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

Well, we know he did it, there's picture-evidence, so...
Honestly, I just feel sorry for Alaphilippe here. He's trying to win a bike race, and now he might not get a chance to, because one of his - supposedly older and smarter - teammates decided to be an idiot.

We know he did the stupid pose. We don't know wether or not he touched her. Anyways does someone remeber Peter Sagan? He actually did grope a women. And got away with it being the big name he is

Sagan was forced to make apology after apology after apology. But yes, he was lucky that he was a very popular rider already and that it was well before MeToo. He would have been in real **** if it had happened in 2019 or 2018 instead.

I have to agree. If Sagan did that today he'd almost certainly be suspended for awhile.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Well, we know he did it, there's picture-evidence, so...
Honestly, I just feel sorry for Alaphilippe here. He's trying to win a bike race, and now he might not get a chance to, because one of his - supposedly older and smarter - teammates decided to be an idiot.

We know he did the stupid pose. We don't know wether or not he touched her. Anyways does someone remeber Peter Sagan? He actually did grope a women. And got away with it being the big name he is

I've thought about that incident too in the last few days, and it's made me wonder if the landscape has changed in almost 6 years. I think it has, quite significantly. I think the outcry and pressure would be similar if it was Sagan doing that today - I mean, in the last 6 years, tons of races have done away with the practice of having podium girls entirely, which is a sea change from the previous decades. Part of the change in thinking towards that was spurred by that incident, like 'while we're talking about him groping podium girls, uhhh, why are there podium girls'. So although it is dumb that, relatively speaking, Sagan skated by that one while Keisse is in the middle of a sh*tstorm, I do feel that if Sagan did exactly that today, he'd be in the middle of an even bigger sh*tstorm. Like, my feeling is that he didn't get away with it because he was a big name, it's because not as many people thought it was a big deal as they do now. Plus it was after a one-day race that was over, so it's not like Flanders Classics found itself in a tough spot with an ongoing race and the choice of whether to exclude him a la ASO with Rasmussen in 2007.

But yeah, the way this is playing out is pretty frustrating. There are two issues getting conflated - on the one hand, Keisse (and Sagan and whoever else) would do well to learn that the benefit that they might get from a laugh at what might be a meaningless joke for them is more than countered by the serious humiliation someone might feel at being on the other end of that joke. By his statements, that seems to be getting through (although not to Lefevre I guess). But the way that the team and organization have both handled it is rather clumsy - if the organization was going to take him out of the race, they should have done it before the TT. If the team was going to protest, it should have pulled out of the race rather than boycotting the podium. Now it's dumb and petty. Obviously the race organization thought Qst would handle it 'in house' the way that they wanted them to, so that the race organizers wouldn't have to appear to be punishing someone for something that wasn't part of the sporting event. But they've gotta commit to their approach - no one looks good here.

Great post skidmark. Seems like Keisse really does feel sorry. Don't really have an opinion about the race excluding him. IMO the team should have taken Keisse out of the race or just accepted the decision by the race organization. Lefevre's comments and the team's actions (prompted by Lefevre I feel) make it seem like they don't really care about what happened and feel like they are the victims. In the end I don't think the race's reputation will be damaged by this situation while it is a PR disaster for the team.

Edit: actually I do have an opinion about the race's decision, I'm not sure a rider misbehaving outside a race is a reason for exclusion, seems to be that it is up to the team to take disciplinary action in that case. On the other hand it may be a good thing as the rider and team will feel the consequences of his action and will think twice before making the same mistake

 

[Sestriere]

Re: Re:

While I see the problem you are outlining in your last sentence, this obviously wasn't the case here. Regarding the likely thought process that led to the organiser's decission which I explained in my post, and that I agree with, we should leave it with the bolded part.

The fact that this wasn't the case here, is of no consequence when you are setting a precedent. The next time it may well be the case, and they can refer to this case. Also, i editted my previous message.

I'd also like to point out that i'm not condoning Keisse's or DQS's behaviour. As mentioned in the DQS topic.

Obviously, there has to be a reason for organisers to exclude a rider, they cannot just invent a story to change results in their liking. Organisers excluding riders for dubious reasons in circumstances that would fit your scenario would certainly damage themselves more, the public isn't stupid.

So what happens when a race organizer thinks its damaging to its reputation to allow former doping offenders? Or to allow a rider with a criminal past?

I think its part of holding a profesional bike race that former dopers will attend (at least until they get life time bans), and the public knows it as well, so that point isn't really valid. Such an exclusion would also have to be issued before the start of the race, the same applies for riders with a riminal past. Obviously CAS would immediately reject such exclusions.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

I think its part of holding a profesional bike race that former dopers will attend (at least until they get life time bans), and the public knows it as well, so that point isn't really valid. Such an exclusion would also have to be issued before the start of the race, the same applies for riders with a riminal past. Obviously CAS would immediately reject such exclusions.

I can not agree with such logic. Because the public knows it, it's ok. I'm sure the public also knows there will be riders that make bad sexist jokes. So, why is that more damaging to their image? Having a guy known for cheating, is now less of an issue for a race organizer, than a guy making a sexist joke. The emoticon for what i'm thinking now has yet to be invented.

Keisse's act happened before the race started, and happened outside the race organization. The same with Boonen snorting coke. Yet TDF was not able to deny him, but San Juan can kick Keisse out. Just because the race already started... that's basically your argument.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Re: Re:

I think its part of holding a profesional bike race that former dopers will attend (at least until they get life time bans), and the public knows it as well, so that point isn't really valid. Such an exclusion would also have to be issued before the start of the race, the same applies for riders with a riminal past. Obviously CAS would immediately reject such exclusions.

I can not agree with such logic. Because the public knows it, it's ok. I'm sure the public also knows there will be riders that make bad sexist jokes. So, why is that more damaging to their image? Having a guy known for cheating, is now less of an issue for a race organizer, than a guy making a sexist joke. The emoticon for what i'm thinking now has yet to be invented.

Keisse's act happened before the race started, and happened outside the race organization. The same with Boonen snorting coke. Yet TDF was not able to deny him, but San Juan can kick Keisse out. Just because the race already started... that's basically your argument.

The rules surrounding things like these are up for interpretation. Which means that there will always be different outcomes. One solution would be to have a committee in the UCI which would decide about things like these when to exclude riders, but then again, I'm the last to be in favour of giving more power to the UCI.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

I think its part of holding a profesional bike race that former dopers will attend (at least until they get life time bans), and the public knows it as well, so that point isn't really valid. Such an exclusion would also have to be issued before the start of the race, the same applies for riders with a riminal past. Obviously CAS would immediately reject such exclusions.

I can not agree with such logic. Because the public knows it, it's ok. I'm sure the public also knows there will be riders that make bad sexist jokes. So, why is that more damaging to their image? Having a guy known for cheating, is now less of an issue for a race organizer, than a guy making a sexist joke. The emoticon for what i'm thinking now has yet to be invented.

Keisse's act happened before the race started, and happened outside the race organization. The same with Boonen snorting coke. Yet TDF was not able to deny him, but San Juan can kick Keisse out. Just because the race already started... that's basically your argument.

Well, not the second time...

 

[Sestriere]

Re: Re:

I think its part of holding a profesional bike race that former dopers will attend (at least until they get life time bans), and the public knows it as well, so that point isn't really valid. Such an exclusion would also have to be issued before the start of the race, the same applies for riders with a riminal past. Obviously CAS would immediately reject such exclusions.

I can not agree with such logic. Because the public knows it, it's ok. I'm sure the public also knows there will be riders that make bad sexist jokes. So, why is that more damaging to their image? Having a guy known for cheating, is now less of an issue for a race organizer, than a guy making a sexist joke. The emoticon for what i'm thinking now has yet to be invented.

Keisse's act happened before the race started, and happened outside the race organization. The same with Boonen snorting coke. Yet TDF was not able to deny him, but San Juan can kick Keisse out. Just because the race already started... that's basically your argument.

I will stop playing such games now and state my point one last time.
You posted an article of the UCI regulations that allows race organisers to exclude riders for 'damaging the reputation of the race'. So there is legal background for organisers to make such a decission and I agree with having such a regulations as it is vital for many races to have support from the (local) public. A rider/team has the right to get such an issue to court should they disagree which will decide wether the actions taken are legal. This seems like a usual juridical process to me.

 

[PeterB]

For those who say that it's word against word whether there was an actual physical contact - isn't it almost certain from the photo that there was a contact?

I was also inclined to give Keisse the benefit of doubt but when I look at the photo again now I must say he probably lied about there being no contact between them, which makes him look even worse.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

I will stop playing such games now and state my point one last time.
You posted an article of the UCI regulations that allows race organisers to exclude riders for 'damaging the reputation of the race'. So there is legal background for organisers to make such a decission and I agree with having such a regulations as it is vital for many races to have support from the (local) public. A rider/team has the right to get such an issue to court should they disagree which will decide wether the actions taken are legal. This seems like a usual juridical process to me.

Yes, and again, i do not agree. The rule is trivial at best. There is no clear regulation. Who determines what damages the image of the organization? Again, the fact that you do not see an issue here is telling. Who determines what the punishment will be? It's the social hysteria, that has been calling for his head, so it's the social hysteria that determines if, when and how much the image of the race is at stake and as a result, that he should be punished. This is nothing at all like a usual judicial process. There was a time some centuries ago, when justice worked in a similar fashion. I would hope we are passed that.

I also doubt this rule is as legal as you think it is. In Europe, there is a law (an actual law) that states that anybody has the right to excercise his profession. Now, i'm well aware that Argentina isn't in Europe, but maybe the UCI might want to look at that rule again (seeing as the bulk of cycling takes place in Europe). Because at this point, a race organizer can take away the right of a rider to practice his profession, based on an event out of the personal life, that has no other basis than the opinion of the race organizer, about what constitutes the image of the race being damaged.

For those who say that it's word against word whether there was an actual physical contact - isn't it almost certain from the photo that there was a contact?

I would say, that based on the image, it is almost certain that there was NO physical contact. You are being fooled by perception of a 2D image. Look at how far their feet are apart. The woman's feet aren't even on the picture. I would guess there is at least 1 meter between the two, and for sure she's not sticking her behind out that far.

 

[jaylew]

I really don't see how a determination can be made one way or the other from that one static pic - you can't really tell and the contact could have been right before or after that pic was taken or there could have been no contact at all.

 

[Koronin]

Maybe ask the NFL, most sports leagues in the US have these rules and fine/suspend players for conduct detrimental to the team or to the league. The NFL just happens to be the one that seems to have either the most issues or uses it the most.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re:

I really don't see how a determination can be made one way or the other from that one static pic - you can't really tell and the contact could have been right before or after that pic was taken or there could have been no contact at all.

You can not judge from the picture, what happened right before or right after the picture was taken. That's true.

But you can take basic depth perception into account and see that, at the moment of the picture, she is clearly too far in front of Keisse, for there to be contact. Keisse isn't exactly a small guy, yet while her feet aren't even on the picture, while she is bending forward (not at full height), further while she is at a lower section of the sidewalk, her head is still at the same height of Keisse's eyes. Unless this woman is 1.95, i don't see it possible for this being anything but perception. And unless (but again, speculating) Keisse jumped forward right before or after the picture, or she jumped backward, i very much doubt there was contact.

If you take the image of the woman, and put here next to Keisse, judging by their knees, and by where here feet "would" be, you can see again, that is only an illusion that they are so close. If you put her next to him, you can see that she is bigger, even while bending forwards, which means she must be much closer to the camera for the depth perception to make such a difference. And apart from any sudden and major movement on their part, i don't think it's likely that there was any contact before or after the picture being taken either. But again, just speculating. But for me, i doubt it.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Re: Re:

I really don't see how a determination can be made one way or the other from that one static pic - you can't really tell and the contact could have been right before or after that pic was taken or there could have been no contact at all.

You can not judge from the picture, what happened right before or right after the picture was taken. That's true.

But you can take basic depth perception into account and see that, at the moment of the picture, she is clearly too far in front of Keisse, for there to be contact. Keisse isn't exactly a small guy, yet while her feet aren't even on the picture, while she is bending forward (not at full height), further while she is at a lower section of the sidewalk, her head is still at the same height of Keisse's eyes. Unless this woman is 1.95, i don't see it possible for this being anything but perception. And unless (but again, speculating) Keisse jumped forward right before or after the picture, or she jumped backward, i very much doubt there was contact.

If you take the image of the woman, and put here next to Keisse, judging by their knees, and by where here feet "would" be, you can see again, that is only an illusion that they are so close, but that in fact, she is much closer to the camera. Too close, in my opnion, for there to be contact. And apart from any sudden and major movement on their part, i don't think it's likely that there was any contact before or after the picture being taken either.

You sir, are really, really honouring that user name! Ty

 

[Jancouver]

Well , what are the chances QS will show up next year ?

My guess is that they will rather stay in Europe or Australia.

So the organizers just burned bridges with the best team in cycling!

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re:

Well , what are the chances QS will show up next year ?

My guess is that they will rather stay in Europe or Australia.

So the organizers just burned bridges with the best team in cycling!

To be fair, Quickstep handled this poorly as well. Their PR manager should also know we live in an age of social media and me-too. An age of political correctness. So, Keisse stupid move notwithstanding, QuickStep is also to blame. They knew they could have gotten out with a gesture, and they refused to do so. So, imho, as i said in the other topic, this is a series of bad decisions by all parties involved as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Jancouver]

Re: Re:

Well , what are the chances QS will show up next year ?

My guess is that they will rather stay in Europe or Australia.

So the organizers just burned bridges with the best team in cycling!

To be fair, Quickstep handled this poorly as well. Their PR manager should also know we live in an age of social media and me-too. An age of political correctness. So, Keisse stupid move notwithstanding, QuickStep is also to blame. They knew they could have gotten out with a gesture, and they refused to do so. So, imho, as i said in the other topic, this is a series of bad decisions by all parties involved as far as i'm concerned.

Similarly to the TdF organizers expelling Sagan, these people were too quick with their radical decision as well. Especially for something that didn’t even happen during the race.

What’s next ? Kicking a rider out for a parking violation or jaywalking that happened days before the race?

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

I would guess there is at least 1 meter between the two, and for sure she's not sticking her behind out that far.

Oh, sure, she is standing 1 meter in front of Keisse and Evenepoel has 2 meters long arm

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

I would guess there is at least 1 meter between the two, and for sure she's not sticking her behind out that far.

Oh, sure, she is standing 1 meter in front of Keisse and Evenepoel has 2 meters long arm

:lol: :lol: Yes, clearly you know what you're talking about. She's practically stepping on his toes, that's why her legs aren't even on the photo. And she really is 2 meters tall when bending over.

Evenepoels hand is clearly behind her head, not on top of her head, so it's impossible for you to tell how far his hand is from her head given the point of view. Welcome to the wonderful world of depth perception and perspective.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Well, we know he did it, there's picture-evidence, so...
Honestly, I just feel sorry for Alaphilippe here. He's trying to win a bike race, and now he might not get a chance to, because one of his - supposedly older and smarter - teammates decided to be an idiot.

We know he did the stupid pose. We don't know wether or not he touched her. Anyways does someone remeber Peter Sagan? He actually did grope a women. And got away with it being the big name he is

This is worse than what Sagan did.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

I would guess there is at least 1 meter between the two, and for sure she's not sticking her behind out that far.

Oh, sure, she is standing 1 meter in front of Keisse and Evenepoel has 2 meters long arm

:lol: :lol: Yes, clearly you know what you're talking about. She's practically stepping on his toes, that's why her legs aren't even on the photo. And she really is 2 meters tall when bending over.

Evenepoels hand is clearly behind her head, not on top of her head, so it's impossible for you to tell how far his hand is from her head given the point of view. Welcome to the wonderful world of depth perception and perspective.

I actually appreciate your analysis but all effort comparing height of ones' heads is futile if we do not know from what height the picture was taken. The only usable reference system to determine their position is the ground, therefore it is not ideal that her feet are not visible.
I am assuming her left foot is just under the edge of the photo. Richeze' right foot may roughly point to her left heel (or slightly right from her left heel). Now that we have her foot's aproximate position on the ground, we can try determining its distance from Keisse's left foot. Tips of Richeze's right and Keisse' left feet are actually very close to each other. Comparing the length of Keisse's foot which can be around 30 cm with projected position of her left foot I am assuming the distance between her left heel and Keisse's left foot is around the length of Keisse's foot, i.e. 30 cm, or slightly more. Definitely I don't see 1 meter between them.
All the else, i.e.various bending and leaning only confirms my view that contact was likely.
Also if you are taking a picture with someone would you stand 1 meter in front of them?
I realise we can not reach one definitive conclusion from static picture but this is what my analysis concludes.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Re: Re:

Well, we know he did it, there's picture-evidence, so...
Honestly, I just feel sorry for Alaphilippe here. He's trying to win a bike race, and now he might not get a chance to, because one of his - supposedly older and smarter - teammates decided to be an idiot.

We know he did the stupid pose. We don't know wether or not he touched her. Anyways does someone remeber Peter Sagan? He actually did grope a women. And got away with it being the big name he is

This is worse than what Sagan did.

Really? Because we're only sure that Sagan actually groped someone. Now I'm seeing Logic-is-your-friend's reasoning I'm starting to doubt the woman's story even more.

 

[Robert5091]

Whatever exactly happened, I think we can say that QS's PR team need some lessons in "damage limitations". A little goodwill can go a long way.

 

[IndianCyclist]

First Keisse make a obscene sexist action (Stupidity no 1) in public(Stupidity no 2) that is nicely captured in a photo (Stupidity no 3). So the victim is entitled to complain to police/media which she does. The media gets the news since it is the biggest cycling race in Argentina and spreads it all over the world because it is their job to do so(Escalation 1). Keisse apologizes (DeEscalation 1). DQS do nothing(Escalation 2). The organizers feel that they are associated with bad publicity and takes the attention away from actual race and expel Keisse (Escalation 3). Lefevere makes not starting comment (Escalation 4 Stupidity no 4). Lefevere makes money comment (Escalation 5 Stupidity no 5). DQS donot attend the podium ceremony (Escalation 6 Stupidity no 6)
Good Way to keep the issue burning and sponsors unhappy.

 

[Jancouver]

Re:

First Keisse make a obscene sexist action (Stupidity no 1) in public(Stupidity no 2) that is nicely captured in a photo (Stupidity no 3). So the victim is entitled to complain to police/media which she does. The media gets the news since it is the biggest cycling race in Argentina and spreads it all over the world because it is their job to do so(Escalation 1). Keisse apologizes (DeEscalation 1). DQS do nothing(Escalation 2). The organizers feel that they are associated with bad publicity and takes the attention away from actual race and expel Keisse (Escalation 3). Lefevere makes not starting comment (Escalation 4 Stupidity no 4). Lefevere makes money comment (Escalation 5 Stupidity no 5). DQS donot attend the podium ceremony (Escalation 6 Stupidity no 6)
Good Way to keep the issue burning and sponsors unhappy.

Sponsors unhappy?

You probably don't know much about publicity and marketing.

"Negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown simply because it stimulates product awareness."

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good

So this is a win-win for the sponsors. Nothing too tragical happened and everyone is talking about it.

If that was my company or I was running marketing for them, I would say "Sign me up!"

Geez, this is FREE marketing and publicity worth of millions of dollars!

Ka-Ching!

BTW, go to Twitter and run reports how much publicity the sponsors got last year in January and how much they got (for free) this year.