Amgen Tour of California 2019, May 12-18

[Frankschleck]

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.

 

[del1962]

Richie to wake up

 

[Alpechraxler]

Re:

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

He should just let his legs do the talk. Gain 1'30'' on everyone and just shut down this whole 3k rule crash same time debacle.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

 

[Mayomaniac]

EF have Wegelius as their ds, so they'll probably find a way to loose this race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

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

Sagan won the Laguna Seca stage. That was a really good finish and a good design.

Sagan is a very versatile rider and he can win a lot of different types of finish. I was referring to a particular type of stage design which suits him and has proliferated in the Tour of California in the past, which has been a contributing factor in his immense number of stage wins here. He's won plenty of races I've thought well designed in the past. That Tirreno-Adriatico stage in the two-up with Nibali? Awesome design. The Grindelwald finish in the Tour de Suisse all those years ago? Great design. The 2011 Vuelta stage where Lastras went away with the three Liquigas riders? Good.

The Tour of California has a lot of stages which include too much climbing for the general sprinter, but that guys like Sagan, Matthews or similar can get over - but not close enough to the finish for anybody to reasonably use them as a platform to attack from, which makes a bunch finish more likely - especially as the Tour of California often has wide open finishes which suit the bunch. Stages like this (last climb 52km from home), this (Sagan won this one), this, this, this and this are what I mean. Not stuff like this, which Sagan also won.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

:lol:

 

[RedheadDane]

What do you think happened?

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

:lol:

EDIT:

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.

 

[RedheadDane]

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.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

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.

Agree.

 

[This Charming Man]

Correct decision for race....keeps it competitive....and the peloton should have slowed to let race leader catch....I hated that crap with Contador attacking Schleck in Tour when Schleck dropped his chain.

 

[RedheadDane]

They should just have dropped everything they were doing - and let the break get away - because Tejay crashed? The race was on!

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

Personally I think the rule should be 5K, however I don't have an issue with it for that group as some common sense has to be applied. There have been other times stuff has been done. Mount Ventoux being by far the most egregious of this rule which doesn't even apply to mountain stages.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

They should just have dropped everything they were doing - and let the break get away - because Tejay crashed? The race was on!

I know, right? :lol: He's obviously a blind Tejay fan or didn't even watch the race.

 

[Leinster]

Froome and Porte et al on Ventoux was an exceptional circumstance with crowds near an improvised stage finish causing a moto-related crash and breaking the yellow jersey’s bike. Not remotely the same as a touch of wheels in a speeding bunch outside the 3km flag.

In the same day at the Giro the race agreed in advance to neutralize gc time for the complete 11km finishing circuit. I like the suggestion I heard on GCN that a point can be determined on a race-by-race basis of where they enter narrow streets/tight corners and any crash-related splits can be cancelled out.

I think Tejay should have been given his true finish time; I can kind of see the reasoning behind not, but I think it’s been badly done. Nearly as bad as Tejay’s left-hand braking.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

Agree

 

[RedheadDane]

Current leaders:

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)

 

[RedheadDane]

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!

 

[slosada]

and to pass 2nd in the KOM

 

[Lequack]

Today's final climb:

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

and to pass 2nd in the KOM

I guess he was basically Schrödinger's Pernsteiner: both in the break and not in the break.
(He's in the break)

Also… I'm a bit concerned about that giant bear chasing them!

 

[Rvizzle]

Re:

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?

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

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?

Dropped out of the break, I guess.

Or maybe not: Looks like whoever's in charge of the CN live updates can't make up their minds. This should be the break:

Houle, Fabbro, Doull, Bernas, Hofstede, Bjerg, Storer and Sagan Sr.