Kender said: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?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Kender said: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
c&cfan said:sorry sir, but are you blind?
Parrulo said: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.
cyclopeon said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you give me one example were the jury interpreted the rule like you do? And why didn't they do so last saturday?
Merckx index said: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”.
Sebastian said: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.
Merckx index said: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.
sportzchick said: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