Did they try too hard to make this Giro special?

[md1975]

http://www.universalsports.com/news-blogs/blogs/blog=shiftinggears/postid=532732.html

After yesterday and articles like this coming back up. Do you feel in an effort to 1-up the TDF the planners of the Giro went too far to make this years race "epic"?

After seeing comments from guy who are pure climbers like Contador, I think they may have went a little too far. Riders are fearing things besides pain from riding, and after yesterday...I can only imaging what some will think/do/react to things like the decent on stage 14 Contador mentions. Perhaps we have seen a limit passed by this Giro of what is safe and still a challange and what is truley dangerous.

Thoughts?

 

[gttim!]

Point is moot. This was not a difficult descent.

 

[L'arriviste]

No, I wouldn't say so. Safety is always going to be the biggest question after a terrible event like this and sometimes that process can lead to positive developments that improve conditions for riders and the race in general.

But let's remember that what happened to Wouter Weylandt didn't happen on a "crazy" Giro stage profile such as the ones Contador etc were "afraid" of.

As long as the organisers do everything they can within their power to make the parcours safe, then there's no reason why the race can't be special.

 

[Benotti69]

RAI has been showing the spot where the accident occurred yesterday and there are hundred if not thousands of roads all over Europe like it. It was a slight miscalculation by Wouter and he very very tragically landed on a part of his body that meant his death.

Nearly 200 other riders passed by without mishap. Motorbikes, cars and other race vehicles all passed the same spot at similar speeds without incident.

Wouter looked back and clipped a wall. A unfortunate mistake.

 

[L'arriviste]

According to VeloNews, Cardoso said that Weylandt had been looking behind at who was coming up, presumably to decide whether or not to join them.

 

[md1975]

Point is moot. This was not a difficult descent.

True, it wasn't. But with how they stacked this race with climbs that worry even top riders, is that going too far. Seems the goal was to match(or try to match) the TDF with viewers/sponsors/big name riders/ect in the future. And use this race as a springboard to do so.

 

[ak-zaaf]

But let's remember that what happened to Wouter Weylandt didn't happen on a "crazy" Giro stage profile such as the ones Contador etc were "afraid" of.

Maybe not, but by the time they hit that descent there won´t be a pack of 200+ riders who still feel like they can win something.

Apart from that, accidents can happen anywhere. Maybe it´s better to avoid these things so early in a GT, but would that even be possible?
Didn't Voigt crash hard on a straight line? What about all the road furniture in the Northern-European classics?
I really don't know if there is an answer to this question.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Remember when Erik Dekker crash landed on his face? Wasn't that on a straight road either? In the Valkenburg stage 2006?

 

[Cimber]

Imo yesterday's stage was tricky but not "crazy". We have seen alot of stages in all kind of races that been more difficult that this (the PRB and Ardenne stages in last years Tour fx).

The crosis stage and the stage 2morrow will be "crazy" but that has nothing to do with yeasterday's stage and the tragic event. But ofc safety always needs to be a concern.

Ofc they tried to make this Giro special. They also made last year's giro special. Thats not necessarily a bad thing though, as long as they dont crosses the line.

 

[dlwssonic]

the road wasnt that dangerous, it was just an unlucky occurance. I still believe the parcours this year are greater and better than the tour.

 

[The Hitch]

This was not the Giros fault.

If a number of people crashed, if it was on a stage where danger was predicted, if someone knew something beforehand, then maybe.

But it looks like the great man suffered a tragic accident that nobody could prevent.

No need to throw around blame when there is none.

 

[Cimber]

True, it wasn't. But with how they stacked this race with climbs that worry even top riders, is that going too far. Seems the goal was to match(or try to match) the TDF with viewers/sponsors/big name riders/ect in the future. And use this race as a springboard to do so.

Thats a fair discussion but honestly its a dicusion that has nohting to do with the incident yesterday. The Tour had Carsatelli in 1995, but that didnt make us think the parcour was too hard/difficult (but it did make is think about helmets).

Also they are different ways u can discuss it. I mean, one can discuss if they made it too tough and one can discuss if they made it too dangerous, and those two subjects dont need to be linked. And from what I have read and seen none of those two subjects can be linked to yesterdays stage.

 

[Ferminal]

In another universe yesterday's tragic events did not occur, a small group escaped on the final lumps and produced the winner. The majority laud the organisers for having such an exciting finish for only the second road stage.

 

[nomendil]

You can't have a totally safe race. There's always going to be a descent that you can be unluck/uncareful on, and fall. Racing will always be about adjusting the speed to the situation, there's nothing one can do about it.

 

[Kwibus]

These questions are no suprise after what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday has nothing to do with dangerous descents though.

They can forbid all hills or mountains, but that would destroy the sport.
Or they put airbags on the mountainside and nets on the abyss?(Can't find a good translation) side of the road. This is ofcourse impossible.

Unfortunately there is no solution to this. I'm sure race organisers can put in some more effort to make races safer, but you can wonder how far they should go and if that's possible to fund at all?

It's true that the Giro likes to take risks. The Crostis descent is maybe too risky and they should really reconsider descents on small poor quality roads.

 

[boomcie]

In another universe yesterday's tragic events did not occur, a small group escaped on the final lumps and produced the winner. The majority laud the organisers for having such an exciting finish for only the second road stage.

+1

How about in 99,99 % of all parallel universes this wouldn't have occurred. It's such a sad twist of faith, but the Giro organizers are not to blame.

 

[Michele]

Looking for someone to blame less than 24 hrs since this sad moment happened seems way too early.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

http://www.universalsports.com/news-blogs/blogs/blog=shiftinggears/postid=532732.html

After yesterday and articles like this coming back up. Do you feel in an effort to 1-up the TDF the planners of the Giro went too far to make this years race "epic"?

After seeing comments from guy who are pure climbers like Contador, I think they may have went a little too far. Riders are fearing things besides pain from riding, and after yesterday...I can only imaging what some will think/do/react to things like the decent on stage 14 Contador mentions. Perhaps we have seen a limit passed by this Giro of what is safe and still a challange and what is truley dangerous.

Thoughts?

A death in a grand tour is tragic but it was a single bike accident, a real shame but he made a mistake by looking backwards and lost his line.

Racing bikes is dangerous, even with that little piece of styrofoam on your head. All racers need to be vigilant, all the time, particularly when descending at speed.

 

[thirteen]

In another universe yesterday's tragic events did not occur, a small group escaped on the final lumps and produced the winner. The majority laud the organisers for having such an exciting finish for only the second road stage.

+1

How about in 99,99 % of all parallel universes this wouldn't have occurred. It's such a sad twist of faith, but the Giro organizers are not to blame.

+2

it is sad but it was simple a twist of fate. no one to blame.

 

[Mellow Velo]

It is a pity that it has taken a tragic incident for a number of posters to express their concern about the Giro course as a whole.
Had their thoughts been expressed beforehand, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, their views would carry more weight.

What if the Monte Crostis goes off without a problem, but there is a major accident on another Dolomite descent?

The fact is most accidents take place at rather innocuous places.
There have been fatalities on the track.
Sunday, in Dunkerque, on a dead straight, flat stretch of road, the Cofidis rider in the break fell while at the team car, and an FDJ rider went straight over the top. It could have been very nasty. How do you avoid that?

The other fact is, in difficult situations, riders are less inclined to lapse in concentration and become more cautious.

 

[El Pistolero]

Point is moot. This was not a difficult descent.

Your point is moot.

IT WAS a difficult descend, especially during this stage of the Giro. Yes, accidents like this can happen everywhere, but the risk increases the more dangerous things get.

The Sporza guys were talking the entire time(BEFORE the crash) how difficult this descend was and that they feared what would happen if a big peloton would go down these descends.

Michel Wuyts also found it too dangerous at this point in the Giro(everyone still thinking they can win, not tired) and he goes there on vacation every year. Yes, he said this BEFORE the crash as well(calling the Giro bombastic with little content)

Besides, I don't get the argument "this descend wasn't dangerous, so the Monte Crostis descend should be allowed". It adds nothing to the race and if it increases the chance of endangering someone's live with only 1% then it's not worth it anymore. They're going to ride over the Monte Crostis super slow anyway and it will do more harm for the race than good. I think it's a bit silly to have a stage with both the Monte Crostis and the Zoncolan in it anyway... As if last year's Zoncolan stage wasn't good enough...

Zomegnan used to criticize dangerous routes in the past. What a hypocrite.

I'm all for descends, but dangerous descends so early in the race are MORE dangerous. Thank god the peloton will be tired and there won't be as many cyclists anymore when the Zoncolan stage comes up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.universalsports.com/news-blogs/blogs/blog=shiftinggears/postid=532732.html

After yesterday and articles like this coming back up. Do you feel in an effort to 1-up the TDF the planners of the Giro went too far to make this years race "epic"?

After seeing comments from guy who are pure climbers like Contador, I think they may have went a little too far. Riders are fearing things besides pain from riding, and after yesterday...I can only imaging what some will think/do/react to things like the decent on stage 14 Contador mentions. Perhaps we have seen a limit passed by this Giro of what is safe and still a challange and what is truley dangerous.

Thoughts?

In a word, no.

Its the Giro which means (for the most part) they race in Italy and Italian descents are typically fast, narrow and technical.

 

[benpounder]

Remember when Erik Dekker crash landed on his face? Wasn't that on a straight road either? In the Valkenburg stage 2006?

There but for the grace of God.

Remember this fluke crash from stage 2?

Straight road? check
No road furniture? check
Good surface? check
Good weather? check

Wrecks happen all the time.

 

[Benotti69]

Your point is moot.

IT WAS a difficult descend, especially during this stage of the Giro. Yes, accidents like this can happen everywhere, but the risk increases the more dangerous things get.

The Sporza guys were talking the entire time(BEFORE the crash) how difficult this descend was and that they feared what would happen if a big peloton would go down these descends.

Michel Wuyts also found it too dangerous at this point in the Giro(everyone still thinking they can win, not tired) and he goes there on vacation every year. Yes, he said this BEFORE the crash as well(calling the Giro bombastic with little content)

Besides, I don't get the argument "this descend wasn't dangerous, so the Monte Crostis descend should be allowed". It adds nothing to the race and if it increases the chance of endangering someone's live with only 1% then it's not worth it anymore. They're going to ride over the Monte Crostis super slow anyway and it will do more harm for the race than good. I think it's a bit silly to have a stage with both the Monte Crostis and the Zoncolan in it anyway... As if last year's Zoncolan stage wasn't good enough...

Zomegnan used to criticize dangerous routes in the past. What a hypocrite.

I'm all for descends, but dangerous descends so early in the race are MORE dangerous. Thank god the peloton will be tired and there won't be as many cyclists anymore when the Zoncolan stage comes up.

not wishing to get into a debate. Paola Salvodelli thought it wasn't dangerous. Sean Kelly said he too thought it wasn't particularly dangerous but said it was a fast descent and that can be dangerous if the riders dont take care.

Just saw a crash today on a straight road on a neutralised stage. Nature of racing.

 

[hrotha]

Your point is moot.

IT WAS a difficult descend, especially during this stage of the Giro. Yes, accidents like this can happen everywhere, but the risk increases the more dangerous things get.

The Sporza guys were talking the entire time(BEFORE the crash) how difficult this descend was and that they feared what would happen if a big peloton would go down these descends.

It was a difficult descent. Nothing crazy, but relatively difficult and technical. And yet, the crash happened in an easy section of the descent, and there wasn't a big peloton, only 3 or 4 guys.

Yes, difficult descents increase the chances of a crash, but accidents are inherent to racing. The descent was well within acceptable security margins.