38th Vuelta a San Juan Internacional (2.1) // 26th of January - 2nd of February 2020

[Bonimenier]

Seems like DQS are going full for Remco for GC. They've put Alaphilippe on same time yesterday after the crash, but he let go off the peloton again today after pulling for Hodeg and finished on 20s.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Seems like DQS are going full for Remco for GC. They've put Alaphilippe on same time yesterday after the crash, but he let go off the peloton again today after pulling for Hodeg and finished on 20s.

I had just noticed as well. He finished 14s behind the bunch yesterday, and today again 20s. Both times he was first in the leadout after Serry's work was done. It certainly feels like it was planned, or he wouldn't have done the leadout again today. The question remains, is it a way to "not stand in the way" of Remco going for GC without stating the obvious, or is Alaphilippe simply not as good as last year (or as he's supposed to be) and are they using him in the train in order to get him in better shape and/or because he wouldn't be good enough for GC anyway?

 

[yaco]

It was a spectator. Slow the video down a bit and watch the first UAE rider on the left.

It was noticeable today the peleton rode a distance away from the footpath on the same wide roads - Lesson learnt.

 

[yaco]

Alaphalippe did struggle on the one climbing stage in last year's event - Though still strange you wouldn't go for two options.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Alaphalippe did struggle on the one climbing stage in last year's event - Though still strange you wouldn't go for two options.

He was already past his peak in AGR and F-W last year (although he won the latter on pure class) ...so it makes sense IMO. LBL should be a big target. Better not to rush things.

 

[Ranagazoo]

He's gonna be riding every race this season with his team working hard for him, so maybe he feels like repaying some service to his teammates while he's still building up some form. I expect him to go for it in the TT though.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Obstacles on the route. That's what it says. The article unfortunately doesn't specify what constitutes an obstacle (or what not), just that whatever applies to crossings and barriers, also applies to obstacles. I consider a dog on the road to be an obstacle. Like i would a cow, or a human or a tree. Basically anything that doesn't belong on the road and is big enough to obstruct a clear passage. A dog is similar to a level crossing, in the sense that as it holds up certain riders, and not others within the same group, it causes a time gap. Which is what this rule is for.

If you want to argue that the terms of 2.3.035 should apply, then you must conclude that the remedies of 2.3.035 should be applied.

If a group of riders is split into two groups following the closure of a level crossing, the first group will be slowed down or stopped in order to allow the delayed riders to return to the first group;

Do you really believe that the sprint trains should have been made to stop until every rider affected by the incident is ready to continue and has caught up?

It can be argued that there was a justice in what was done in terms of dismissing the time gaps in the spirit of 2.6. 067, even though the terms of that were not met (personally, I think that the future application of the rule becomes jeopardised by each misapplication of it, so, with regret, would not have been in favour of the neutralisation here); I don't think it is tenable to try to apply 2.3.035 here (and I do not believe that it was cited in the decisions about, eg, Yates and the collapsing Col d'Aspin marker or Froome and the camera bike on Ventoux)

 

[King Boonen]

Obstacles on the route. That's what it says. The article unfortunately doesn't specify what constitutes an obstacle (or what not), just that whatever applies to crossings and barriers, also applies to obstacles. I consider a dog on the road to be an obstacle. Like i would a cow, or a human or a tree. Basically anything that doesn't belong on the road and is big enough to obstruct a clear passage. A dog is similar to a level crossing, in the sense that as it holds up certain riders, and not others within the same group, it causes a time gap. Which is what this rule is for.

That is, frankly, an insane reading of that rule. As @Armchair cyclist has already pointed out, you've also completely ignored the remedies laid out in the rule. The UCI's rules may be pretty flawed in parts, but they're not that crazy.

 

[King Boonen]

If you want to argue that the terms of 2.3.035 should apply, then you must conclude that the remedies of 2.3.035 should be applied.


Do you really believe that the sprint trains should have been made to stop until every rider affected by the incident is ready to continue and has caught up?

It can be argued that there was a justice in what was done in terms of dismissing the time gaps in the spirit of 2.6. 067, even though the terms of that were not met (personally, I think that the future application of the rule becomes jeopardised by each misapplication of it, so, with regret, would not have been in favour of the neutralisation here); I don't think it is tenable to try to apply 2.3.035 here (and I do not believe that it was cited in the decisions about, eg, Yates and the collapsing Col d'Aspin marker or Froome and the camera bike on Ventoux)

You're correct for Froome, it was article 20 of the Tour regulations that was cited (essentially the 3km rule), and I think specifically this section:

Pour les cas exceptionnels, le Collège des commissaires tranche sans appel. (My translation: In exceptional case the commissaires will make a decision with no appeal possible).

For Yates I think it was almost certainly the same thing cited due to the location.

For Froome there was an argument it shouldn't have been applied because it specifically states it's not applicable on that stage.



Interestingly, the UCI regulation (or, at least, the English version of their regulations) for the 3km rule does not contain the section about exceptional cases. This is what could have be used to argue that the application of 2.6.067 was correct.



While it's a very poor situation, not applying the rules as written can cause problems in the future, so I would also not have been in favour of neutralisation here.

 

[Põhja Konn]

He was already past his peak in AGR and F-W last year (although he won the latter on pure class) ...so it makes sense IMO. LBL should be a big target. Better not to rush things.

I tend to agree. He was flying in March last spring, April will probably be the targeted month this year. Him being a bit off-the-pace in January would make sense in that context.

 

[Joelsim]

I tend to agree. He was flying in March last spring, April will probably be the targeted month this year. Him being a bit off-the-pace in January would make sense in that context.

It seems a bit strange for him to be riding SJ and Colombia TBH. Maybe a slightly later start would've been better.

 

[fauniera]

It seems a bit strange for him to be riding SJ and Colombia TBH. Maybe a slightly later start would've been better.

It's just training for him it seems. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DNP-Old]

It seems a bit strange for him to be riding SJ and Colombia TBH. Maybe a slightly later start would've been better.

Colombia is free altitude training for him.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If you want to argue that the terms of 2.3.035 should apply, then you must conclude that the remedies of 2.3.035 should be applied.

Do you really believe that the sprint trains should have been made to stop until every rider affected by the incident is ready to continue and has caught up?

It can be argued that there was a justice in what was done in terms of dismissing the time gaps in the spirit of 2.6. 067, even though the terms of that were not met (personally, I think that the future application of the rule becomes jeopardised by each misapplication of it, so, with regret, would not have been in favour of the neutralisation here); I don't think it is tenable to try to apply 2.3.035 here (and I do not believe that it was cited in the decisions about, eg, Yates and the collapsing Col d'Aspin marker or Froome and the camera bike on Ventoux)

That is, frankly, an insane reading of that rule. As @Armchair cyclist has already pointed out, you've also completely ignored the remedies laid out in the rule. The UCI's rules may be pretty flawed in parts, but they're not that crazy.

Ofcourse it isn't possible to slow the sprint train down, which is why they have added "Any other situation (prolonged closure of the barrier, etc.) shall be resolved by the commissaires."
Furthermore, basically every mention of the word "obstacle" in the rulebook, refers to "danger", "safety" etc.

The rule is specifically unspecific in terms of "obstacles" and "situations" and i don't think that's a coincidence. But my main point is that people keep focussing on the 3k rule, as if the rule somehow negates any other rule or qualification that might give commissaires the option to intervene. The 3k rule is there to make sure that for every incident that applies to the rule, riders get the same time. The 3k rule does not state that in no other situation, action can be taken by the commissaires.

 

[fauniera]

15 km time trial today with a 1 km (at 7%) climb towards the end. Evenepoel, Ganna, Oliveira the favourites i guess. I'm hoping for McNulty to show something here.

 

[Wvv]

Alaphilippe abandons due to stomach issues.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Alaphilippe abandons due to stomach issues.

Yeah, i guess that makes now

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222174078007762944

View: https://twitter.com/deceuninck_qst/status/1222174078007762944

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Live in 50 minutes

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvBErEM7MPY

 

[GuntherL]

Starting times for the DQS boys:
@Pieter_Serry
21:57
@zdenekstybar
22:38
@EvenepoelRemco
22:55
@bert_bvl
23:26
@alvaro_hodeg
23:35

 

[hayneplane]

Starting times for the DQS boys:
@Pieter_Serry
21:57
@zdenekstybar
22:38
@EvenepoelRemco
22:55
@bert_bvl
23:26
@alvaro_hodeg
23:35

Hi Gunther are those times CET?

 

[sir fly]

There's something enigmatic in the landscape... mixed tropical and continental vegetation, bare slopes, geology like it's just begun transforming, urbanization and industrialization like the land's been only recently settled...
Tough environment to relate with.

 

[Bonimenier]

Hi Gunther are those times CET?

It is.

 

[GuntherL]

An impressive performance by the Argentinian Cobarrubia at age 21.

 

[klintE]

Bohli lost 34 seconds to some local guy. Not bad.

 

[sir fly]

Stojnic rode really well that second part of the course.
Not a bad result at all.