contador's(riis) request

[c&cfan]

if AC wants to protest anything it should be to his boss for not telling his riders to pull the chase group. instead they just followed the carrots who aren't built for the flats

sorry sir, but are you blind?

 

[Parrulo]

sorry sir, but are you blind?

indeed both navarro and porte were pulling along side euskaltel the problem is that every1 else got caught by the crash. and until the crash 2k from the finish the gap wasn't even anything out of this world(35 secs) considering the massive piling up that closed the road and the fact that they had to get up to speed again while the main group just kept gong full gas.

 

[c&cfan]

indeed both navarro and porte were pulling along side euskaltel the problem is that every1 else got caught by the crash. and until the crash 2k from the finish the gap wasn't even anything out of this world(35 secs) considering the massive piling up that closed the road and the fact that they had to get up to speed again while the main group just kept gong full gas.

exactly. saxo had no choice.

 

[T_S_A_R]

the rules don't make any sense at all.

why does gilbert get the 6 secs he took out of hushovd, millar et al but they don't get the 14 secs over bossen hagen who wasn't in any crashes?

we know why the rules are there (so sprinters can act like idiots without ****ing up the GC) but the fact that soft pedalling riders who know they have already got a time can hold up riders still on the clock is a clear flaw.

 

[cyclopeon]

Dear Lanark,

Two points;
First, nothing anyone ever writes is ever as CLEAR as you seem to think this Rule is. Every word has its nuances, and no one can ever think of all the possible situations the rule they write is meant to "cover".

Second, Rules are made for the guidance of intelligent thinking individuals, but inevitably become the excuse for failure to exercise thought processes of hidebound small and unimaginative minds.

 

[Merckx index]

Dear Lanark,

Two points;
First, nothing anyone ever writes is ever as CLEAR as you seem to think this Rule is. Every word has its nuances, and no one can ever think of all the possible situations the rule they write is meant to "cover".

Second, Rules are made for the guidance of intelligent thinking individuals, but inevitably become the excuse for failure to exercise thought processes of hidebound small and unimaginative minds.

Thanks, CP, very well put. To be more specific:

I'm sorry but you seem to be just making up interpretations of the rules as you go along. The rules clearly state that Contador should get the finishing time (again, read those words) of the group he was in.

Which group was that? Once he was obstructed by the second crash, he was in the same group that Andy was in.

You seem to interpret (for you are doing that just as much as I am) the rule as saying the group the rider was in at the time the crash occurred. My interpretation is that it’s the group the rider was in at the time he was held up by the crash. Bert was not in Andy’s group when that group crashed, but he was in that group when he was held up by that crash.

You would have to amend your interpretation to say “in the group that crashed when it crashed and held up by that crash”. If you word it in this way, then by a strict interpretation, you’re right, Bert should be out of luck. But it also means that if a rider is just a second or two behind the group when it crashes, and therefore is every bit as affected by the crash as anyone else in that group, he doesn’t get the time benefit. This is such a blatant violation of the spirit and intention of the rule that it should make it obvious that this interpretation of the rule isn’t fair.

It’s one thing to penalize a rider who falls off the peloton at the finish, and so gets the actual time he takes to cross the line, rather than the time of the first across the line. But it’s quite another to add to that penalty a delay of indefinite time due to circumstances totally beyond his control.

It doesn't say anything about keeping the same time differences between his group and the group in front of them that they had at the time of the crash.

Yes it does. The rule says that riders in a crash within 3 km are given the same finishing time of the group they were in. This guarantees that the time difference between those who avoided the crash and those who were in the crash—which was zero before the crash—will be preserved (with the qualification, as I noted before, that it must be the last rider in the finishing group). All I’m arguing is that this should be applied in cases where a trailing group runs into a crash within the last 3 km. This doesn’t mean Bert gets the same time as Andy. It means the time difference between him and Andy at the time of the crash is preserved.

You can't give Contador the same time as the worst riders from the first crash group, because he wasn't in that group, he was in the group behind that, and he got that time.

You didn’t read my post carefully, or maybe misunderstood it. I defined the crash Bert was in as the first crash group, and the one Andy was in as the second group (because, surprise, they occurred in that chronological order). What I’m calling the first crash group was behind the second crash group (until they caught up with them).

Anything else would be a complete violation of the rules. There was no group with a finishing time of 36 seconds, so Contador can't get a time of 36 seconds at the finish. That's the end of it.

Suppose everyone except Gilbert was caught in the second crash. Gilbert goes on to win. How do you propose to treat all the other riders? There is no group that finished ahead of them. Do you give them the same time as Gilbert? Or suppose ten riders avoided the second crash, but they finished strung out, each with a different time. What time do you give the riders in the crash? The rider who finished in tenth? If that’s the case, then how do you explain Barredo, who finished 26” down, more than the riders in the second group?

Or suppose Bert and some other riders who were caught in the first crash pass all of the riders in the second crash, then have a third crash further down the road, blocking the riders who were caught in the second crash. According to the way you want to interpret the rule, Bert and the riders who were in the first crash have to be given a finishing time corresponding to some other riders, but what time is that?

If you want to prevent the situation we had with Contador on saturday, you should change the rules. If they had a completely different intention with this rule, they could have easily formulated it differently, and devised a rule that had Bertie at 36 seconds back.

I invite you to explain a) how, in a very simple statement, that rule would read; and b) why this particular situation is not specifically addressed in the rule book.

Can you give me one example were the jury interpreted the rule like you do? And why didn't they do so last saturday?

Can you give me one previous example where this situation ever occurred in a GT?

I can give you lots of examples of UCI rules that don’t make sense. I certainly wouldn’t base my argument on “they ruled this way, it must be right”.

 

[Lanark]

Can you give me one previous example where this situation ever occurred in a GT?

I can give you lots of examples of UCI rules that don’t make sense. I certainly wouldn’t base my argument on “they ruled this way, it must be right”.

This happens pretty much 90% of the GT's were there is a crash in the last 3km. There are always domestiques who are dropped before the 3km point, and get held up by a later crash. It's just that nobody cares.

I really don't get what you are arguing. First of all, the rule is clear, I haven't seen any arguments why that wouldn't be the case, only that you think it should be interpreted differently.

Second of all, we have the actual interpretation of the UCI-jury. They behaved exactly like you would expect if you actually read the rule. Apparently, the UCI agree that my reading is the correct one. Why didn't they give Contador 36 seconds if that was the right interpretation? Why didn't Saxobank launch an appeal when it's so obvious that they were wronged?

All your elaborate thought experiments would just result in a neutralisation of the time differences, with the winner in place. They wouldn't need the 3km rule in those extreme circumstances (that are never gonna happen anyway).

 

[Angliru]

Yes, of course, but that would have looked stupid. I mean Contador loosing by about 30 sec and Andy by 81 sec but still in the overall standing Andy would only be 6 sec behind when soft-pedal to the finish and Contador would be 30 sec down even if he had beaten Andy by almost a min. And I think it is silly to name someone a fanboy because he doesnt like the rule who gave Andy this massive advantage. There were a lot other riders who suffered too and also those who finished in front of Contador/Andy who really tried to fight for every second on a quite tough finish.

In the war between Andy Schleck and Contador according to many on here you are either a fanboy or a hater, there is no in between.

 

[Mambo95]

So the clear intention of the rules, as I read them, is NOT to give a rider in a crash the same time as other riders who were not in the crash. It is to prevent the rider from losing time clearly caused by the crash, while being careful not to give him any advantage over any rider who avoided the crash.

I invite anyone who disagrees with this interpretation to consider the following scenario: the second crash was far more horrific than it actually was, carnage all over the road, nobody able to get past for more than five minutes. If that had happened—and it could have happened—the same application of the “rules” would have definitely eliminated Bert from the race. Does anyone here seriously think this would have been allowed? You’re going to allow Andy, held up for more than five minutes, to finish in about the same time as those who missed the crash, while Bert, who would have finished far sooner if not for that same crash, has to take those five minutes?

What if Andy had been seriously hurt, and limped to the finish line ten or fifteen minutes after the race was over? Is he still going to get the same time as the leaders, while Bert, who might have actually crossed the line minutes earlier than Andy, is still going to lose five minutes on him? Surely anyone can see that the logic behind this leads to absurd situations.

For any rule, you can make up a scenario which makes it 'unfair'. There are two ways to avoid this: 1) Have a huge book of scenarios, which has every single 'absurd situation' possibly imaginable - this is totally impractical and probably impossible; or 2) Let the commissaires use their 'judgement' - this way opinions and inconsistency creep in. Who you are often has more sway than actual events. Objectivity needs to be maintained whenever possible.

As it stands, the rules are simple and clear, understood by everyone (that matters) and cover 95% of scenarios. It gets the job done.

There seems to be an obsession for some with 'fairness'. Well he's a surprise for you: Sport Is Not Fair. It never has been and it never will be. An element of luck has always played a part.

 

[sportzchick]

The so called spectator was on the side of the road on the grassy area so he was were he/she was suppose to be

are we going to time adjust any crash just because the favorite was in it??? IF AC was at the beggining of the peleton like a professional cyclist who wants to win the TDF would do then he wouldnt of been caught out. Hes no rookie after all - hes a former winner and a experiance campaigner so he should know better.

Im betting if it was Shleck or Evens caught out we wouldnt here a peep out of Riis

 

[Archibald]

The so called spectator was on the side of the road on the grassy area so he was were he/she was suppose to be

reminds me of another bit of grassy area on the side of a road... Dallas in november anyone?

 

[UlleGigo]

All of the teams know the rules. That's why the teams bring strong riders to keep their riders at the front on flat stages. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time its your own fault and bad things can happen. So Contador doesn't get the luck this time. Could be worse, he could have broken his arm. Get over it.