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

[Koronin]

Well, there are some things to consider.

First, the rule was made to protect GC riders from timeloss due to crashes caused by others, usually those preparing the sprint or mechanical issues, with not enough distance left to make up for lost time. Whether 3k or 5k, that is not the point of the rule. They needed to agree upon a distance, but the distance as such is not at the center of things. Furthermore, a crash happening at 3.4k caused by spectators, reflects badly upon the organization, since they should do a better job ensuring rider safety to begin with. Also, in this case there was no ulterior motive, like there was in Tour of California, where the crash happened further away, and they ended up giving the group that had previously been dropped (Van Garderen even missed the right turn and went off-course) the same time because they were supposedly held up by the riders still on the ground.

The ToC one was just strange and home favortism to the highest in that. This one is a totally different story in which it appears that common sense is what determined pushing the 3K rule out due to the circumstances.

 

[Bonimenier]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1221637273281875972

Official statement that those who were involved in the crash will get the same finish time as the peloton.

 

[DNP-Old]

That is an appalling decision.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

That is an appalling decision.

How so? Clearly, the crash was caused by a spectator in the close in to the finish. It wasn’t due to rider error.

 

[tobydawq]

But some strong English skills!

 

[DNP-Old]

How so? Clearly, the crash was caused by a spectator in the close in to the finish. It wasn’t due to rider error.

Well, first of all, because the line is drawn at 3 kilometer. The crash didn't happen inside the 3 kilometer mark. If you don't want these situations, scrap the rule entirely. You can't have a rule and then just deviate from it whenever you like. Because where do you draw the line then? Is 3.4 kilometers allowed, but 4.1 isn't? Second of all, and maybe more importantly, something tells me they wouldn't have done jack if Sepúlveda finished with the main bunch.

 

[F_Cance]

So the crash did not affect Ala, he decided to drop in the last km, lost 14 seconds and now they gift him the same time. Sounds fair to me

 

[Nirvana]

Like I wrote in the UCI survey last year this rule should be removed, crash happens with or without the rule and fight for position won't disappear until you totally neutralize sprinters stages (something I fear will happen in the future) but the worst thing is that juries and organizers use that rule as an excuse to save whoever they wants regardless of the 3 kms, so just give everytime their real time to everyone and stop these mass neutralizations travesties. I'm pretty sure that knowing there won't be a jury ready to save their asses will also make riders more "attentive".

 

[Joelsim]

The correct decision IMO.

 

[hayneplane]

Definitely the right decision as for me the fact of it being caused by spectator actions deserves to override the fact of it being beyond the 3km marker.

 

[Mayomaniac]

DQS filed a formal complaint, because the crash was caused by spectators who were too close to the road, and one of them stepped forward. Both Stybar and Van Lerberghe saw what happened, and it can also be seen on footage. The jury will make a decision in roughly 9 hours (noon CET).

DQS hopes other teams will follow their lead since other GC contenders also lost time.

Evenepoel komt goed weg na crash: “Ik weet niet hoe het gebeurd is, maar het valt gelukkig mee”

Oef, dat valt mee. Remco Evenepoel (20) kwam gisteren ten val in de eerste rit van de Ronde van San Juan, maar komt goed weg. Hij liep geen blessures op en zijn dure tijdverlies werd hem kwijtgescholden. Dankzij een klacht van de ploeg. “Ik weet niet hoe het allemaal gebeurd is, maar plots lag...

www.hln.be

Kinda funny that after all the huffing and puffing that Lefevere did last year they are still racing this race.

 

[del1962]

I think what annoys people is the inconsistency of these decisions

 

[RedheadDane]

Kinda funny that after all the huffing and puffing that Lefevere did last year they are still racing this race.

I was a bit surprised by that as well.

 

[Jungle Cycle]

I think what annoys people is the inconsistency of these decisions

exactly..
just like the cut-off time. If it's 1 ou 2 lesser names, ok. If it is the "shameful 93" like in the Vuelta.....

 

[Bolder]

The ToC one was just strange and home favortism to the highest in that. This one is a totally different story in which it appears that common sense is what determined pushing the 3K rule out due to the circumstances.

I agree 100 percent. Rules are rules but the jury/officials need to have some flexibility. In the ToC (alifornia) they abused the privilege to help TJ (in vain as it turned out). The judgement call in this case seemed reasonable. The run in was flat and straight, so whether the neutral flag was 3 km or 3.5 km doesn't really matter.

now if a spectator had caused a crash 5 km out that would have been a much harder call to justify.

But I'd have been OK with keeping the gap too. Would make for better attacking...

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Like I wrote in the UCI survey last year this rule should be removed, crash happens with or without the rule and fight for position won't disappear until you totally neutralize sprinters stages (something I fear will happen in the future) but the worst thing is that juries and organizers use that rule as an excuse to save whoever they wants regardless of the 3 kms, so just give everytime their real time to everyone and stop these mass neutralizations travesties. I'm pretty sure that knowing there won't be a jury ready to save their asses will also make riders more "attentive".

There is nothing to be done when a spectator steps onto the road, no matter how "attentive" you are. Or do you expect the entire peloton to swerve left to right and back again every time there is a possible issue approaching? Knowing about 80% of riders in the peloton are riding "blind".

In this case, it was the correct decision and yes, they should go even further as far as i'm concerned. First of all, i don't understand the amount of sprinting stages in a stage race, why so many stages have to be catered toward one niche of riders. Especially in a stagerace with so many conti teams, this is asking for trouble, because all these 3rd rate teams stack their line up with sprinters & leadouts and they will all go for glory. Secondly, i've seen one too many GC guy waste another season, because of a crash caused by the sprint chaos. Maybe you think that's part of the fun, but personally i don't. They could go towards allowing riders to detach from the sprinting peloton in the final 5k, or provide an alternate route towards the finish. Something along those lines.

That is an appalling decision.

No, it's the correct decision. Like i said earlier, the rule isn't about 3k. The rule is about preventing GC riders to suffer time-loss due to a mechanical or a crash close to the finish, in a way they can't make up for it due to the short distance. As such, it doesn't matter if it's 3.4 or 2.5k. In California, it was the wrong decision, especially since they used it to grant the group that had been dropped prior to the crash, the same time. That was an appalling decision.

So the crash did not affect Ala, he decided to drop in the last km, lost 14 seconds and now they gift him the same time. Sounds fair to me

Indeed. He chose to do the leadout, he chose not to follow. On the other hand, maybe he thought it didn't matter since his biggest competitors were held up in the crash and he was still doing a lot better? I guess that might be part of it.

 

[christopherrowe]

I don't have a particular opinion on the crash and the decision of the commisaires, but it seemed to me that spectators on this race, from what I saw in the last 40km or so that were streamed on GCN, are a little cavalier about not only how close they are to the road, but about actually crossing the road in front of the peloton. I'd have to go back to look exactly when it occurred, but I distinctly remember one man sauntering across from left to right (as seen from the perspective of the camera, which was holding a front on view of the approaching bunch) within the last 3K when the speed was wound up pretty high and the riders were spread across the whole road.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I don't have a particular opinion on the crash and the decision of the commisaires, but it seemed to me that spectators on this race, from what I saw in the last 40km or so that were streamed on GCN, are a little cavalier about not only how close they are to the road, but about actually crossing the road in front of the peloton. I'd have to go back to look exactly when it occurred, but I distinctly remember one man sauntering across from left to right (as seen from the perspective of the camera, which was holding a front on view of the approaching bunch) within the last 3K when the speed was wound up pretty high and the riders were spread across the whole road.

This was not inside the 3k imho (i think i know the situation you are referring to). I think it was not long after the last climb of the Punto Negra dam, a guy crossing IN BETWEEN the camera motor and the peloton

 

[red_flanders]

That is an appalling decision.

2.3.035 The following rules shall apply:
5. Any other situation (prolonged closure of the barrier, etc.) shall be resolved by the commissaires.
This article shall apply equally to similar situations (mobile bridges, obstacles on the route, etc.)

Not sure what's appalling about applying the rules. Of course they did it out of a combination of self interest and some sense of fairness given the situation. It would be horrible for a race that has almost zero interest to lose interest completely because of what a spectator did on Stage 1. It's also entirely reasonable and fair that they neutralized the results given the nature of what happened. The rules allow for leeway and the appropriate leeway was taken.

I think what annoys people is the inconsistency of these decisions

Allowing for judgement means inconsistency. That's a good thing. This is a human endeavor. Consistency is nice, but it's less important than getting the call right. Which they did.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

While I can understand that this situation is clearly very different to TJ's situation in ToC, I also think it gives the whole 3km rule a grey-zone-quality that will diminish its value when the rule is not enforced like in this case.

Hypothetically, you could imagine the scenario where a spectator makes a move that causes a rider to maneuver to one side causing others to crash just outside the 3km limit. The spectator does, in this case, not actually touch the rider. Would this also constitute a scenario where the rules do not apply? Or was the rider making a wrong decision when making this move, thus it should be viewed as the cyclist's fault that he reacted to the spectator and, then, the rules of 3km do apply? If one wants to follow the logic that lies behind the decision made in San Juan, then one should probably also excempt the rules in the hypothetical scenario that I laid out. In both cases, something unexpected happens that causes a rider to crash. But you can ofcourse argue that in this particular case (San Juan) there was nothing the rider could have done differently to avoid the crash. In that case, there is certainly fairness in deciding that the rider could not have avoided the crashing, adding weight to the decision of excempting the rules from their application. However, I did not watch the crash, so I do not know if that was the case in San Juan? Even then, if you ignore the the principle of action restraints, there also seems to exist another problem that adds to the murkiness of these decisions, because exactly how far from the 3km limit does the crash need to happen before the rules can be ignored?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

While I can understand that this situation is clearly very different to TJ's situation in ToC, I also think it gives the whole 3km rule a grey-zone-quality that will diminish its value when the rule is not enforced like in this case.

Hypothetically, you could imagine the scenario where a spectator makes a move that causes a rider to maneuver to one side causing others to crash just outside the 3km limit. The spectator does, in this case, not actually touch the rider. Would this also constitute a scenario where the rules do not apply? Or was the rider making a wrong decision when making this move, thus it should be viewed as the cyclist's fault that he reacted to the spectator and, then, the rules of 3km do apply? If one wants to follow the logic that lies behind the decision made in San Juan, then one should probably also excempt the rules in the hypothetical scenario that I laid out. In both cases, something unexpected happens that causes a rider to crash. But you can ofcourse argue that in this particular case (San Juan) there was nothing the rider could have done differently to avoid the crash. In that case, there is certainly fairness in deciding that the rider could not have avoided the crashing, adding weight to the decision of excempting the rules from their application. However, I did not watch the crash, so I do not know if that was the case in San Juan? Even then, if you ignore the the principle of action restraints, there also seems to exist another problem that adds to the murkiness of these decisions, because exactly how far from the 3km limit does the crash need to happen before the rules can be ignored?

That's a separate discussion (worth having). A GC rider needs to finish in the first bunch in order not to lose time, meaning he has to finish with the sprinters. That means he has to expose himself to what is statistically the most dangerous part of the race, the part most likely to see crashes and time loss. Imho, the 3k rule should be at least 5k, because the chaos starts before 3k, and getting held up or crashing at 4k, doesn't give you enough distance to close a 30 second gap down. Let alone 1m or more.

You could argue if this is the ideal solution to the problem. Does a GC rider have to expose himself to the chaos of a sprint to begin with? In an age of specialization, crashing and breaking something can mean the end of a season (or worse), while you are practically being forced, as a GC rider, to partake in a circus that little to do with your own ambitions.

 

[spalco]

Allowing for judgement means inconsistency. That's a good thing. This is a human endeavor. Consistency is nice, but it's less important than getting the call right. Which they did.

To an extent, yeah. Within a race there should definitely be consistency. Otherwise it's situational I agree, and who got hurt by this decision anyway?

I would be open to lengthening the 3km rule also though, especially in the GTs. At 5km it's often pretty dangerous in the TdF already for example.

 

[yaco]

I watched the race and couldn't see a spectator causing a crash - Spectators lined the footpath which was on a wide road - I noticed the riders were riding close to the footpath on both sides of the road - Too me it seemed similar to when Sagan crashed in Flanders riding too close to the barriers - I will have another viewing of the incident.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Live on two different youtube channels (see opening post).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oskBh9Qg93g

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Crash in the breakaway, because a dog was crossing the street.