Looking forward to see if Jesper Hansen can make a top 5 GC, i think he can.
Watch out for Spilak. I know the weather is not in his favour.
Watch out for Spilak. I know the weather is not in his favour.
Moviefan1203 said:Tejay just has to hang on tomorrow. Pogacar will be a problem I sense.
jmdirt said:Your grapes to watermelons analogy is interesting, but not what happened in the actual race so its not a discussion.
Koronin said: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.
Sagan won the Laguna Seca stage. That was a really good finish and a good design.tobydawq said:Ah, of course, so if a stage suits Sagan, it's badly designed, because you don't like Sagan.
:lol:Logic-is-your-friend said:jmdirt said:Your grapes to watermelons analogy is interesting, but not what happened in the actual race so its not a discussion.
It is exactly what happened. One rider was behind, about to lose close to a minute, lose his GC lead, but was gifted his lead by the jury because of a crash that happened in a different group than he was in. This is EXACTLY the same as far as the facts go that the jury should take into consideration.
Koronin said: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.
Why is that? The rule is 3k. Not 3.1k or 3.5k. I could understand, that there should be some leniency had the crash happened like directly before the 3k marker, at say 3.02k but this was half a kilometer. What's the use of rules if you're not going to use them. Or worse, use them in one case, but not in another.
EDIT:jmdirt said::lol:Logic-is-your-friend said:jmdirt said:Your grapes to watermelons analogy is interesting, but not what happened in the actual race so its not a discussion.
It is exactly what happened. One rider was behind, about to lose close to a minute, lose his GC lead, but was gifted his lead by the jury because of a crash that happened in a different group than he was in. This is EXACTLY the same as far as the facts go that the jury should take into consideration.
Koronin said: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.
Why is that? The rule is 3k. Not 3.1k or 3.5k. I could understand, that there should be some leniency had the crash happened like directly before the 3k marker, at say 3.02k but this was half a kilometer. What's the use of rules if you're not going to use them. Or worse, use them in one case, but not in another.
I'm using the actual race as my scenario not a hypothetical situation that isn't the same. The jury gave the '3.2 group' the same time as the stage winner. Tejay finished ahead of many of them. How funky would it be for Tejay to have a slower time than people who finished behind him. Remember, I don't think that the jury decision was correct.
Agree.RedheadDane said:I'm using the actual race as my scenario not a hypothetical situation that isn't the same. The jury gave the '3.2 group' the same time as the stage winner. Tejay finished ahead of many of them. How funky would it be for Tejay to have a slower time than people who finished behind him. Remember, I don't think that the jury decision was correct.
He finished ahead of the riders who crashed because they had to pick themselves up (and were injured), while he was hardly slowed down.
Logic-is-your-friend said:jmdirt said:Your grapes to watermelons analogy is interesting, but not what happened in the actual race so its not a discussion.
It is exactly what happened. One rider was behind, about to lose close to a minute, lose his GC lead, but was gifted his lead by the jury because of a crash that happened in a different group than he was in. This is EXACTLY the same as far as the facts go that the jury should take into consideration.
Koronin said: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.
Why is that? The rule is 3k. Not 3.1k or 3.5k. I could understand, that there should be some leniency had the crash happened like directly before the 3k marker, at say 3.02k but this was half a kilometer. What's the use of rules if you're not going to use them. Or worse, use them in one case, but not in another.
I know, right? :lol: He's obviously a blind Tejay fan or didn't even watch the race.RedheadDane said:They should just have dropped everything they were doing - and let the break get away - because Tejay crashed? The race was on!
jmdirt said:Not the same as what you described:
"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'm using the actual race as my scenario not a hypothetical situation that isn't the same. The jury gave the '3.2 group' the same time as the stage winner. Tejay finished ahead of many of them. How funky would it be for Tejay to have a slower time than people who finished behind him. Remember, I don't think that the jury decision was correct.
So to answer your question, no, I'm not saying give the race leader the same time as the people who finished 50 seconds ahead of him. But your analogy doesn't take into account the jury decision. You are saying that the crashers should have a faster time than the race leader who finished ahead of them (but still 50 down on the stage winner)...interesting.
jmdirt said:You are saying that the crashers should have a faster time than the race leader who finished ahead of them (but still 50 down on the stage winner)...interesting.
AgreeLogic-is-your-friend said:jmdirt said:Not the same as what you described:
"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'm using the actual race as my scenario not a hypothetical situation that isn't the same. The jury gave the '3.2 group' the same time as the stage winner. Tejay finished ahead of many of them. How funky would it be for Tejay to have a slower time than people who finished behind him. Remember, I don't think that the jury decision was correct.
So to answer your question, no, I'm not saying give the race leader the same time as the people who finished 50 seconds ahead of him. But your analogy doesn't take into account the jury decision. You are saying that the crashers should have a faster time than the race leader who finished ahead of them (but still 50 down on the stage winner)...interesting.
Yes, again, exactly the same. Race leader loses time. The group that is 50 seconds ahead of him, crashes. He gets held up by some of them (has to slow down) and gets the same time as the group he was trailing by 50 seconds. Whether he lost time due to a crash, getting dropped uphill, going off-course is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT.
jmdirt said:You are saying that the crashers should have a faster time than the race leader who finished ahead of them (but still 50 down on the stage winner)...interesting.
Obligatory :lol:![]()
![]()
Yes, this is indeed exactly what i'm saying and the reason WHY THE RULE EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. That people who crashed or had a mechanical within the 3k limit, get the same time as the group they were part of at the moment, which in turn automatically means they will get a better time than people that finished before they did but were riding behind them at the moment of the crash. My mind is boggled that you still don't seem to be able to grasp that.
However, in this case, neither the crashed group, nor the race leader should get the privilege since it wasn't even within the 3k limit.
Owain Doull (Team Ineos)
Lennard Hofstede (Team Jumbo-Visma)
Matteo Fabbro (Katusha-Alpecin)
Fabio Jakobsen (Deceuninck-QuickStep)
Juraj Sagan (Bora-Hansgrohe)
Bernhard Eisel (Dimension Data)
Michael Storer (Team Sunweb)
Mikkel Bjerg (Hagens Berman Axeon)
Eight is enough for this breakaway:
Lennard Hofstede (Team Jumbo-Visma)
Hermann Pernsteiner (Bahrain-Merida)
Matteo Fabbro (Katusha-Alpecin)
Hugo Houle (Astana Pro Team)
Pawel Bernas (CCC Team)
Michael Storer (Team Sunweb)
Mikkel Bjerg (Hagens Berman Axeon)
Matteo Badilatti (Israel Cycling Academy)
Pernsteiner and Holst Enger have gone back to the bunch, which has closed the gap to 2:05
slosada said:and to pass 2nd in the KOM
RedheadDane said:New break-situation:
Eight is enough for this breakaway:
Lennard Hofstede (Team Jumbo-Visma)
Hermann Pernsteiner (Bahrain-Merida)
Matteo Fabbro (Katusha-Alpecin)
Hugo Houle (Astana Pro Team)
Pawel Bernas (CCC Team)
Michael Storer (Team Sunweb)
Mikkel Bjerg (Hagens Berman Axeon)
Matteo Badilatti (Israel Cycling Academy)
Pernsteiner and Holst Enger have gone back to the bunch, which has closed the gap to 2:05
Not how Pernsteiner has managed to splice in two!
Rvizzle said:RedheadDane said:New break-situation:
Eight is enough for this breakaway:
Lennard Hofstede (Team Jumbo-Visma)
Hermann Pernsteiner (Bahrain-Merida)
Matteo Fabbro (Katusha-Alpecin)
Hugo Houle (Astana Pro Team)
Pawel Bernas (CCC Team)
Michael Storer (Team Sunweb)
Mikkel Bjerg (Hagens Berman Axeon)
Matteo Badilatti (Israel Cycling Academy)
Pernsteiner and Holst Enger have gone back to the bunch, which has closed the gap to 2:05
Not how Pernsteiner has managed to splice in two!
What's happened to Doull?
Houle, Fabbro, Doull, Bernas, Hofstede, Bjerg, Storer and Sagan Sr.