Yeah, we’re done. Half of what you’re asking has already been discussed and the rest is irrelevant. Enjoy your evening.
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!
its A tough one, because you can’t encourage the doing something after a crash. Doing something to avoid a crash for themselves or someone else might be easier to defend though…I just think it's stupid that riders are punished for whacking people who do stupid *** like that. Of course, with the incident on stage 1, nothing could've been done, but I think in many other cases...
Look! I'm not saying riders should go all "Rumble in the Jungle" on idiot spectators - like Lopez in the Giro a few years ago - but a little punch might make people think twice.
Riders doesn’t mean they have to agree and have a single voice. While it would be preferable if they organised and at least raised things the majority found concerning, literally no riders raised issues with the course design until the morning of the race. There’s no way none of them were aware of that finish. Even if nothing had come from it, it would add a lot of weight to future arguments that it had be raised and dismissed.
Yeah, we’re done. Half of what you’re asking has already been discussed and the rest is irrelevant. Enjoy your evening.
its A tough one, because you can’t encourage the doing something after a crash. Doing something to avoid a crash for themselves or someone else might be easier to defend though…
As an example. Every WT team will have assessed this course as soon as they could get hold of it. Several will have sent people to parts of it and all will have notes on where to attack, where to watch out for certain riders etc. It would be fairly easy to ask teams to submit a report detailing any safety concerns they may have with the route as presented. The stage we are discussing here was supposedly unsafe regardless of weather, so that’s not relevant, and as such should have been brought to the attention of the UCI and organisers sooner.And I don't disagree with you here, I just wanted to say that they obviously have real problems to organize themselves in an effective way (and that that is not just due to people not having the time or interest to do so). So it's not ASO/ UCI / riders; the riders are not forming a front.
I also think they should have raised that issue earlier if they cared but I would imagine it's easier from the outside than when you are in a certain "scene". I suppose some don't want to do dangerous things, but they are afraid to speak out, because they don't want to be seen as weak - then on the morning or the day before they hear some remarks around them and realize "oh, there are other ones who see it like me". I mean, that's what it's usually like, then someone dares to utter dissent a little louder, and then the protest starts to get bigger, people are talking to each other, getting excited, and then some go and put out a statement or something because they now feel that basically everybody feels like that, only so far nobody has dared to say it and the time's running out... but then some others who were okay with the situation have not been asked and they are like "hey, I'm part of this group, but I never said something like that, why are they speaking in my name", but they don't want to betray the team/ their friends/ collegues/ the representatives, so they are a bit grumpy and make some small remarks behind the scenes, but don't dare to say something clear and loud themselves...
There's usually a social dynamic in these things, which isn't helpful here.
Don’t lie. Our first interaction in this thread is here where you quoted my post:Lets just remember it's you who quoted me. It wasn't the other way around. If you feel it is beneath you to discuss something with me then just stick with that altogether.
Yeah, unfortunately doing nothing is probably all a rider can do unless they are actually being attacked by a fan which I don’t think has happened before (even when Hinault decided to throw hands the farmers weren’t trying to attack them from what I remember).Yeah... I suppose that's the issue.
Rider crashing, and then going ballistic on spectator who might have caused the crash: Bad!
Rider physically getting spectator off the road to prevent crash: Good? Sometimes...
Of course; it would be quite bad if a rider pushes a spectator, and then causes a crash.
Yeah, unfortunately doing nothing is probably all a rider can do unless they are actually being attacked by a fan which I don’t think has happened before (even when Hinault decided to throw hands the farmers weren’t trying to attack them from what I remember).
I’m not sure about requests to participate, but deGhent claimed to be “one of the 16 who downloaded the packet.”Or even better; read the second sentence.
Who was it who'd actually wanted to participate in that meeting back in the fall? But had his request denied.
There was this whole thing about "Oh, it was only Gilbert and Trentin, of the riders, who particated in that meeting. Riders don't really care!" But then it turned out, at least one more rider had actually wanted to participate.
De Gendt complained about the timing of the email and the fact that this was the only communication. He seemed to be implying that Gilbert didn’t mention it to them in any other way from what I remember. Clearly the communication is very disfunctional.I’m not sure about requests to participate, but deGhent claimed to be “one of the 16 who downloaded the packet.”
First of all, the final on the day was actually dry and there was no rain. Secondly, if I anticipate or worry about rain, there's nothing stopping me to voice these worries in advance so changes can be made in advance. Nothing is stopping the riders to approach the UCI with a suggestion like "Listen, stage 3 of this year's tour is really technical. If there's clearly dry weather forecast we're happy to race it as it is but if there's a slight chance of rain we request the following changes: ...". And in the case that the UCI or ASO deny any approaches in advance there's still the relatively easy solution of addressing the press and making your voices public.@Unterlenkerfahrend
If i organise a picnic month in advance and on the day of the event hail storms happen. Or if i organise a balloon ride and on the day of the event wind is to strong. I need to adapt on the day of the event to keep the event safe. If there would be someone above me and would deny the request to move picnic indoors or would force the balloon to take off. And after some accident would happen. Legally this should be settled in a way responsibility is theirs and hence i guess i am not an organiser of the event in the first place.
Cycling is no different in this regard.
Cycling is no different in this regard.
This is probably one of those statments made by someone who is a relativly recent follower of the sport who thinks they can "fix" cycling but turns out to have missed something obvious: But, if you replace the 3km rule with something like the below, how do people think that would play out?
“In stages awarding the maximum number of green jersey points, the GC time will be taken when the front of the race has entered the last 7%* of the total distance and there has been no break, echelon or escapee for 60 seconds.”
It seems to me that what should happen is that the racing jeopardy of losing time and the physical jeopardy of losing skin should be separated as much as possible, and that the best way to do that without killing the significance of the days racing is to give the gc teams a chance to prove their power, but then sit up because they know that the gc times are safe.
*i chose 7% because i like the number, if theres a beter way to say "the finale of the race" then substitute that instead
And I don't disagree with you here, I just wanted to say that they obviously have real problems to organize themselves in an effective way (and that that is not just due to people not having the time or interest to do so). So it's not ASO/ UCI / riders; the riders are not forming a front.
How on earth are you going to enforce that, and why would you even want to? So last year, they could have said that Van Aert (who was known as a sprinter/TT'er) should have voluntarily gotten dropped in the mountains because he had no place there. With your proposition, riders are no longer allowed to place an attack late in the final, to outsmart the sprinter teams, because apparently only sprinters/teams have the right to be there? What if a GC rider actually wants to sprint for boni seconds, or actually thinks he has a shot to win the stage with a late attack?As for sprinting stages.
Once a sprint is initiated rider gets disqualified if it changes the sprinting line and by doing that endangers others.
In general the whole Peloton has no place at finishes of the sprinting stages. It's like saying sprinters should be there at the top of the mountains. It just makes no sense. If you are not sprinting or helping your team leader/sprinter you have no place being there.
Bottom line there is much that could be done with relative ease and hence i don't really understand people saying on how not much can be done.
This is what i read in local media this morning. If ASO is not to blame in this case then UCI not only made some inappropriate comments after the race but is fully responsible for what happened on stage 3.
How on earth are you going to enforce that, and why would you even want to? So last year, they could have said that Van Aert (who was known as a sprinter/TT'er) should have voluntarily gotten dropped in the mountains because he had no place there. With your proposition, riders are no longer allowed to place an attack late in the final, to outsmart the sprinter teams, because apparently only sprinters/teams have the right to be there? What if a GC rider actually wants to sprint for boni seconds, or actually thinks he has a shot to win the stage with a late attack?
If you simply neutralize the GC at x km from the finish, you take away the incentive for GC riders and teams to get to the front beyond that point. The only reason they are there for sprinting finishes, is not to lose time behind a gap, or get caught in a crash. By neutralizing the final few kms, you effectively get the result you are aiming for, without taking away any liberties. If you have a GC guy who wants to attack or sprint for boni's, or lead out a sprinter in his team, he still can.
Did you watch the Eurosport coverage ? If not then your opinion holds little weight.