Amgen Tour of California 2019, May 12-18

[RedheadDane]

They're going pretty fast. Everything split apart. Sagan in the break.

 

[Highlander]

If TVG crashes right now and can't finish with the main group, will he still be given the same time as the leaders?

 

[Rollthedice]

QS is ridiculous. But we all know that.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Higuita can take this.

 

[This Charming Man]

Mr. Le Fevre, although a great promoter, and coach has no say here. Although I believe rules are rules, in this case the correct decision was made. The crash around the 3km mark hampered TJs catch. On the otherhand Moscon did not have a chance in hades, and benefitted from the judges decision.

So basically this? Basically I have seen many anomalies, and bending of rules around Mr. LeFevres career. Rules. Truth, less than truth...

rules = rules ≠ rules

 

[johnymax]

Interesting final 5km. When Stybar attacked on that little climb I already saw another D-QS win. I have nothing against them but I'm happy it didn't happen. Nice win for Garcia.

 

[Koronin]

Nice win for Garcia.

As for yesterday. IMO those who were in the crash and in that group that time I'm ok with being given the time of the group they were with as it was just outside the 3k. To me that is where some common sense and some minor leeway come into play. Now Tejay is a whole different thing as he had not gotten back to that group so I don't get how he gets their time.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

I guess by the lack of posts it's another typical sprint stage. And this is supposedly "the hardest Tour of California" edition. :Neutral:

Classic problem that they have here, and frequently did in Messick's early hype period when they first moved to May, is that the organisers base their perception of the difficulty on the number of obstacles or the height metres gained, without paying any mind to how they are placed in the stage. The ATOC has a long history of stages with loads of ascents - often at low gradient - early in the stage or through the middle but then long flat or rolling run-ins, so there are lots of stages with big height gain but no selectivity. This is a part of the reason why Sagan has such a great record here - lots of stages which have far too much climbing for most of the pure sprinters to stand a chance of making it to the end, but run-ins which are often wide open and straight, favouring the bunch, and with no obstacles close to the finish, making a reduced bunch sprint very likely; Sagan is invariably one of the strongest sprinters left once the others are dropped in the climbing parts of the stage, so he is often the favourite for the stage once this has happened.

It had been getting better in recent years, but this year's course is a real return to those problems.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

I guess by the lack of posts it's another typical sprint stage. And this is supposedly "the hardest Tour of California" edition. :Neutral:

Classic problem that they have here, and frequently did in Messick's early hype period when they first moved to May, is that the organisers base their perception of the difficulty on the number of obstacles or the height metres gained, without paying any mind to how they are placed in the stage. The ATOC has a long history of stages with loads of ascents - often at low gradient - early in the stage or through the middle but then long flat or rolling run-ins, so there are lots of stages with big height gain but no selectivity. This is a part of the reason why Sagan has such a great record here - lots of stages which have far too much climbing for most of the pure sprinters to stand a chance of making it to the end, but run-ins which are often wide open and straight, favouring the bunch, and with no obstacles close to the finish, making a reduced bunch sprint very likely; Sagan is invariably one of the strongest sprinters left once the others are dropped in the climbing parts of the stage, so he is often the favourite for the stage once this has happened.

It had been getting better in recent years, but this year's course is a real return to those problems.

Ah, of course, so if a stage suits Sagan, it's badly designed, because you don't like Sagan.

At least tomorrow they will climb Baldy at the end and not at the beginning of the stage. I guess that's completely coincidental given the organisers' complete lack of knowledge of anything.

Regarding today: I was really upset with Bahrain for closing the gap as I could not for the life of me figure out what the hell they thought they were accomplishing by doing that. Then García took his first pro victory.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Basically I have seen many anomalies, and bending of rules around Mr. LeFevres career. Rules. Truth, less than truth...

I must have missed the part where Lefevre is a race organizer and UCI official, who are supposed to ENFORCE the rules.

 

[Breh]

Re: Re:

I guess by the lack of posts it's another typical sprint stage. And this is supposedly "the hardest Tour of California" edition. :Neutral:

Classic problem that they have here, and frequently did in Messick's early hype period when they first moved to May, is that the organisers base their perception of the difficulty on the number of obstacles or the height metres gained, without paying any mind to how they are placed in the stage. The ATOC has a long history of stages with loads of ascents - often at low gradient - early in the stage or through the middle but then long flat or rolling run-ins, so there are lots of stages with big height gain but no selectivity. This is a part of the reason why Sagan has such a great record here - lots of stages which have far too much climbing for most of the pure sprinters to stand a chance of making it to the end, but run-ins which are often wide open and straight, favouring the bunch, and with no obstacles close to the finish, making a reduced bunch sprint very likely; Sagan is invariably one of the strongest sprinters left once the others are dropped in the climbing parts of the stage, so he is often the favourite for the stage once this has happened.

It had been getting better in recent years, but this year's course is a real return to those problems.

Ah, of course, so if a stage suits Sagan, it's badly designed, because you don't like Sagan.

That's not at all how I interpreted that

 

[Tonton]

What a debacle...forget the podium ceremony, what matters is to get it right before next day's stage start. And again we see deers in the headlights. Not looking good for the sport, not looking good for the ToC, at this point who cares about the race? What a debacle.

 

[Moviefan1203]

All about Baldy. Will be a fun stage!

 

[sienna]

Re: Re:

This is like matchfixing.

This is not "like" matchfixing. This IS matchfixing.

And it is said the TDU is a joke.

 

[Jancouver]

Baldy is a mediocre stage. The finish is hard but too short and all that climbing prior to that is not very selective.

I wish they would do Palomar Mt (south grade) as MTF stage. Much longer (20km) and harder climb averaging about 7%.

 

[Moviefan1203]

Tejay just has to hang on tomorrow. Pogacar will be a problem I sense.

 

[johnymax]

Re:

Baldy is a mediocre stage. The finish is hard but too short and all that climbing prior to that is not very selective.

I wish they would do Palomar Mt (south grade) as MTF stage. Much longer (20km) and harder climb averaging about 7%.

They still go from 300m to almost 2000m in the last 40km or so. A lot of climbing, it'll be a hard stage.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Nice win for Garcia.

As for yesterday. IMO those who were in the crash and in that group that time I'm ok with being given the time of the group they were with as it was just outside the 3k. To me that is where some common sense and some minor leeway come into play. Now Tejay is a whole different thing as he had not gotten back to that group so I don't get how he gets their time.

Let me restate upfront (since some might not have read my post a few back), I don't think that it was a good decision. But if you give the '3.2 crash group' the same time as the winner, you have to give Tejay the same time because the crash slowed his chase and because he finished ahead of many in that group. How funky would that be to give guys a better time than those who finished ahead of them?

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Nice win for Garcia.

As for yesterday. IMO those who were in the crash and in that group that time I'm ok with being given the time of the group they were with as it was just outside the 3k. To me that is where some common sense and some minor leeway come into play. Now Tejay is a whole different thing as he had not gotten back to that group so I don't get how he gets their time.

Let me restate upfront (since some might not have read my post a few back), I don't think that it was a good decision. But if you give the '3.2 crash group' the same time as the winner, you have to give Tejay the same time because the crash slowed his chase and because he finished ahead of many in that group. How funky would that be to give guys a better time than those who finished ahead of them?

I do wonder if the the crash had happened at 2.95KM instead of just outside of the 3K would the same people (I'm not talking necessarily about the fans, but the teams and those in the sport) have been complaining about this?

 

[jaylew]

What a debacle...forget the podium ceremony, what matters is to get it right before next day's stage start. And again we see deers in the headlights. Not looking good for the sport, not looking good for the ToC, at this point who cares about the race? What a debacle.

I have to agree. That decision was a joke. I've ridden Baldy many times and was looking forward to the stage but now I don't really care that much. It's a shame - It's not Tejay's fault but I find myself hoping for him to fail in the name of fairness. Well, that or destroying the field by a minute which I don't see happening.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

Let me restate upfront (since some might not have read my post a few back), I don't think that it was a good decision. But if you give the '3.2 crash group' the same time as the winner, you have to give Tejay the same time because the crash slowed his chase and because he finished ahead of many in that group. How funky would that be to give guys a better time than those who finished ahead of them?

So, imagine the following scenario:

There is a climb 10k from the finish, with the sumit 4k from the finish. There is a small peloton at the foot of the climb, but in the final 2k of the climb, the race leader (among others) is dropped. He loses roughly 45 seconds in those final 2k of the climb. Not much beyond the sumit, there is a crash in the small peloton that was ahead. A bunch of riders stay down, while most of the guys get to ride on. The race leader reaches the location of the crash, and has to slow down a bit for a few guys that are still getting on their bikes and cars that may be in the way. Let's say, he loses 5 seconds or so. He finishes 50s down compared to some of his rivals that dropped him on the climb.

So you are saying, give him the same time as the guys that dropped him on the climb. Interesting to say the least.

I do wonder if the the crash had happened at 2.95KM instead of just outside of the 3K would the same people (I'm not talking necessarily about the fans, but the teams and those in the sport) have been complaining about this?

The fact that TJ was behind the crash had nothing to do with that crash, but with a crash that happened minutes earlier, not to mention the fact that he himself made a steering error and went off-course. They just used this as an excuse to give him the same time. When there is a railway barrier delaying riders, or cows on the road, or any other obstacle, they don't hand you the time you lost and they certainly don't give you the same time as the group that managed to escape the cows, or passed the railway barrier minutes earlier. TJ was not part of the second crash.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Let me restate upfront (since some might not have read my post a few back), I don't think that it was a good decision. But if you give the '3.2 crash group' the same time as the winner, you have to give Tejay the same time because the crash slowed his chase and because he finished ahead of many in that group. How funky would that be to give guys a better time than those who finished ahead of them?

So, imagine the following scenario:

There is a climb 10k from the finish, with the sumit 4k from the finish. There is a small peloton at the foot of the climb, but in the final 2k of the climb, the race leader (among others) is dropped. He loses roughly 45 seconds in those final 2k of the climb. Not much beyond the sumit, there is a crash in the small peloton that was ahead. A bunch of riders stay down, while most of the guys get to ride on. The race leader reaches the location of the crash, and has to slow down a bit for a few guys that are still getting on their bikes and cars that may be in the way. Let's say, he loses 5 seconds or so. He finishes 50s down compared to some of his rivals that dropped him on the climb.

So you are saying, give him the same time as the guys that dropped him on the climb. Interesting to say the least.

I do wonder if the the crash had happened at 2.95KM instead of just outside of the 3K would the same people (I'm not talking necessarily about the fans, but the teams and those in the sport) have been complaining about this?

The fact that TJ was behind the crash had nothing to do with that crash, but with a crash that happened minutes earlier, not to mention the fact that he himself made a steering error and went off-course. They just used this as an excuse to give him the same time. When there is a railway barrier delaying riders, or cows on the road, or any other obstacle, they don't hand you the time you lost and they certainly don't give you the same time as the group that managed to escape the cows, or passed the railway barrier minutes earlier. TJ was not part of the second crash.

Your grapes to watermelons analogy is interesting, but not what happened in the actual race so its not a discussion.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Let me restate upfront (since some might not have read my post a few back), I don't think that it was a good decision. But if you give the '3.2 crash group' the same time as the winner, you have to give Tejay the same time because the crash slowed his chase and because he finished ahead of many in that group. How funky would that be to give guys a better time than those who finished ahead of them?

So, imagine the following scenario:

There is a climb 10k from the finish, with the sumit 4k from the finish. There is a small peloton at the foot of the climb, but in the final 2k of the climb, the race leader (among others) is dropped. He loses roughly 45 seconds in those final 2k of the climb. Not much beyond the sumit, there is a crash in the small peloton that was ahead. A bunch of riders stay down, while most of the guys get to ride on. The race leader reaches the location of the crash, and has to slow down a bit for a few guys that are still getting on their bikes and cars that may be in the way. Let's say, he loses 5 seconds or so. He finishes 50s down compared to some of his rivals that dropped him on the climb.

So you are saying, give him the same time as the guys that dropped him on the climb. Interesting to say the least.

I do wonder if the the crash had happened at 2.95KM instead of just outside of the 3K would the same people (I'm not talking necessarily about the fans, but the teams and those in the sport) have been complaining about this?

The fact that TJ was behind the crash had nothing to do with that crash, but with a crash that happened minutes earlier, not to mention the fact that he himself made a steering error and went off-course. They just used this as an excuse to give him the same time. When there is a railway barrier delaying riders, or cows on the road, or any other obstacle, they don't hand you the time you lost and they certainly don't give you the same time as the group that managed to escape the cows, or passed the railway barrier minutes earlier. TJ was not part of the second crash.

I'm more referring to Moscon and those who where in that group when the crash happened. Tejay is a different issue. IMO, Moscon is the one who actually should be in the lead of the race. (Remember I'm not a fan of Sky.) In Tejay's case I think his time could have been adjust by around 15 seconds or so for the time he was held up by the crash when he got there, but still should have lost some time. I just happen to believe that those in that group should have gotten the same time as those at the front of the group.

 

[Bolder]

The more I think about it, the less I like the decision. You have to have some kind of cutoff -- in this case, it's the 3 km flag. I can see a tiny bit of logic in the judges' ruling (guessing that the caravan extended from the length of the crash to EF's group), but, on the other hand, had TJ not had that intermediate misstep with the levers he probably would have caught up -- so the gap was his fault, just as being blocked wasn't. TJ himself said he was resigned to having lost the jersey.

 

[luckyboy]

Shame we don't have Bernal around to go thermonuclear on everyone