(Dutch Beer Race) Amstel Gold Race 2021, 216.7k. Sunday.

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Pick the winner.

  • Pidcock / Kwiatkowski

    Votes: 9 11.3%
  • Bagioli / Vansevenant / Alaphilippe

    Votes: 10 12.5%
  • Schachmann / Schelling

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • van Aert / Roglic

    Votes: 33 41.3%
  • Valverde

    Votes: 5 6.3%
  • Hirschi

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Fuglsang

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Matthews

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Hindsgaul Madsen

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • All these choices are ridiculous, I'm making my ballot invalid.

    Votes: 12 15.0%

  • Total voters
    80
  • Poll closed .
On the AGR finish it's certainly close enough for TV pics to fool the viewer. However for the womens race last wedesday no amount of technical explanation is going to explain how Vollering wasn't given the win - it wasn't even particularly close. Given that blunder just a few days earlier, it doesn't inspire much confidence that the AGR finish would have been correct either
There is a photo finish we can all view. It's incredibly close but it's also clear that Van Aert is ahead at that point and therefore is the official winner. The only debate is about where the line for the photo is WRT the black painted finish line. As mentioned above, the photo finish and that line are never the same in any race, because the black line and the black bike tire don't offer enough visual contrast for the photo finish images to work. So they always move it to part of the white line.

I think there is healthy debate about whether they put it close enough to the black line to be as fair and clear as possible, and my guess is that they can do better. It does appear that by the time they got to the black line that Pidcock won, but that isn't the metric for who wins, it's the photo finish.
 
For Van Aert's wheel hasn't yet crossed the black line (not even in the air), whereas Pidcock's is clearly beyond it.
That part is true, but this is not on how you decide who the winner is. It's the most front point of the front wheel tire that needs to get to the finish line first, not front wheel hub.

P.S. That is why i originally said the image was taken a light year away, from where the finish of the race actually occurred.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
That part is true, but this is not on how you decide who the winner is. It's the most front point of the front wheel tire that needs to get to the finish line first, not front wheel hub.

P.S. That is why i originally said the image was taken a light year away, from where the finish of the race actually occurred.
True, but as Pidcock asked, "where is the finish line?" My understanding is that it's the black line in the middle of the thicker white stripes. If that's the case, then clearly Pidcock's front wheel tire touched it first.
 
I'm afraid there is nothing clearly about it.

But yes, of course it's the black line which is the finish line...
But even if you say the black line is the finish line: which part of it? Where it goes from black to white, or from white to black? Or the middle of it, but how is that located with absolute precision? To a mathematician, a line is infinitely narrow, but try painting that on a road surface. There is something dissatisfyingly arbitrary about it, but essentially, if you want your result to be beyond question, make sure there is clear space between you and the guy you are trying to beat: limits of our ability to measure will always throw up these debatable results, and the nature of competition abhors a tie.


Besides, they couldn't have a guy who doesn't drink beer on the top step with that podium ritual, could they?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
But even if you say the black line is the finish line: which part of it? Where it goes from black to white, or from white to black? Or the middle of it, but how is that located with absolute precision? To a mathematician, a line is infinitely narrow, but try painting that on a road surface. There is something dissatisfyingly arbitrary about it, but essentially, if you want your result to be beyond question, make sure there is clear space between you and the guy you are trying to beat: limits of our ability to measure will always throw up these debatable results, and the nature of competition abhors a tie.


Besides, they couldn't have a guy who doesn't drink beer on the top step with that podium ritual, could they?
It's when you go from white to black.
 
True, but as Pidcock asked, "where is the finish line?" My understanding is that it's the black line in the middle of the thicker white stripes. If that's the case, then clearly Pidcock's front wheel tire touched it first.
There is some dilemma, on where the photo finish system was positioned.



Said that, and as i didn't find any other picture taken from TV, where they where closer to the black line, i took this picture, from the video i posted earlier. This video frame is also taken from after the finish line was already crossed.

If you take into consideration the lens from the camera for sure introduced some distortion and i read the road on this part has a convex shape. Look at the white line at van Aert wheel. It makes a turn at the end. This highly likely represents some camera distortion at play. Now take this image a couple of cm back, knowing Pidcock was clearly gaining, having momentum. Are you still sure that at that point Pidcock was ahead just before the black line?

It's possible, but regardless it's safe to say they were close at the begining of the black line and the difference was marginal.

I guess the moral of the story is Pidcock should have been more cocky and should attack a bit earlier, wanting to win this race.
 
There is some dilemma, on where the photo finish system was positioned.



Said that, and as i didn't find any other picture taken from TV, where they where closer to the black line, i took this picture, from the video i posted earlier. This video frame is also taken from after the finish line was already crossed.

If you take into consideration the lens from the camera for sure introduced some distortion and i read the road on this part has a convex shape. Look at the white line at van Aert wheel. It makes a turn at the end. This highly likely represents some camera distortion at play. Now take this image a couple of cm back, knowing Pidcock was clearly gaining, having momentum. Are you still sure that at that point Pidcock was ahead just before the black line?

It's possible, but regardless it's safe to say they were close at the begining of the black line and the difference was marginal.

I guess the moral of the story is Pidcock should have been more cocky and should attack a bit earlier, wanting to win this race.
Well your photo seems to confirm Pidcock won, which, as mine does, shows the Briton's front edge tire and that below the forks is ahead of van Aert's. I don't see how one could see it otherwise from both photos, honestly. So there was no need for him to attack a bit earlier. Unfortunately the race officials gave the wrong verdict in my book.
 
Last edited:
Can you not just accept that Wout won? There are always jury decisions and little details that affect a cycling race's result and sometimes they can be argued with, but not always do they have to.
If Pidcock would have been declared the winner you could say just the same that Van Aert was the real winner. In my eyes the best would have been to declare both of them winners, since there was no "clear" winner, but I can understand that the will to have one winner is very big. You could well argue that this should be handled differently in the future, but this result now just is what it is.
 
Can you not just accept that Wout won? There are always jury decisions and little details that affect a cycling race's result and sometimes they can be argued with, but not always do they have to.
If Pidcock would have been declared the winner you could say just the same that Van Aert was the real winner. In my eyes the best would have been to declare both of them winners, since there was no "clear" winner, but I can understand that the will to have one winner is very big. You could well argue that this should be handled differently in the future, but this result now just is what it is.
What's your point? The result was controversial, people are discussing it. I offered my take. "Accepting" that Wout was declared the winner, sure, but not that he actually won, even if the result says otherwise. It's called drawing one's own conclusions.

Results can be challenged, disagreed with, I mean they aren't inscribed in stone so to speak, but subject to human error and thus human scrutiny.

By the tone of your post, it seems as if we should just be passive uncritical observers who simply acknowledge the verdicts as if they came done from up above. Thankfully, however, society has progressed from that feudal mentality. So enjoy your freedoms, as I certainly do mine.
 
Well your photo seems to confirm Pidcock won, which, as mine does, shows the Briton's front edge tire and that below the forks is ahead of van Aert's. I don't see how one could see it otherwise from both photo's, honestly. So there was no need for him to attack a bit earlier. Unfortunately the race officials gave the wrong verdict in my book.
Don't just read the part that suits you and disregard the rest. I clearly said this picture was taken after the finish already happened, the same as the situation on your picture. Hence neither can prove Pidckock or van Aert won or lost. The reason i didn't post a picture, where the front wheel is exactly at the beginning of the black line is i can't find any.

What both pictures do confirm is there was some TV camera distortion involved and Pidckock was gaining massively on van Aert. Just look at the difference Pidckock made in such small amount of time and distance comparing both pictures.

My verdict hence is if Pidckock was 1 mm ahead or behind of van Aert, this is not such a big deal and i wouldn't call it injustice. Just be more cocky next time and don't take the speech form Dave, about the marginal gains, too literally.
 
Don't just read the part that suits you and disregard the rest. I clearly said this picture was taken after the finish already happened, the same as the situation on your picture. Hence neither can prove Pidckock or van Aert won or lost. The reason i didn't post a picture, where the front wheel is exactly at the beginning of the black line is i can't find any.

What both pictures do confirm is there was some TV camera distortion involved and Pidckock was gaining massively on van Aert. Just look at the difference Pidckock made in such small amount of time and distance comparing both pictures.

My verdict hence is if Pidckock was 1 mm ahead or behind of van Aert, this is not such a big deal and i wouldn't call it injustice. Just be more cocky next time and don't take the speech form Dave, about the marginal gains, too literally.
I don't know your credentials for analysing photography, but I'll take you at your words. Nevertheless, in both images I see Pidcock's front tire touching the black line before van Aert's reaches it. In this sense the timing of the photo is irrelivent, for even if "after the finish already happened", as you claim, one rider, Wout, had not yet finished. Nor can it be said my photo's angle distorts reality, as your picture is a perfect side view and it basically demonstrates the same outcome.
 
What's your point? The result was controversial, people are discussing it. I offered my take. "Accepting" that Wout was declared the winner, sure, but not that he actually won, even if the result says otherwise. It's called drawing one's own conclusions.

Results can be challenged, disagreed with, I mean they aren't inscribed in stone so to speak, but subject to human error and thus human scrutiny.

By the tone of your post, it seems as if we should just be passive uncritical observers who simply acknowledge the verdicts as if they came done from up above. Thankfully, however, society has progressed from that feudal mentality. So enjoy your freedoms, as I certainly do mine.
My point is: Winner can be discussed, it's hard to tell, depends on where you put the line. The line was drawn by a jury. The drawing of the line is questionable, but that would be so if it was drawn somewhere else. Since it was so close that no rider could make a clear difference, the riders brought themselves into this situation where a jury has to decide. So they have to accept the verdict. (And Pidcock did.)

Besides this was Amstel gold, not the WC, not the Olympics, not the Tour, where there's a jersey, money, sponsors as a consequence. Not much financial difference. It's simply a sportive decision.

Feudal mentality? You make it sound like the fate of the world depends on this decision. If this was so, be assured, I'd be more passionate.
 
The weird thing about some folks being aghast at a rider being “robbed” is that the finish -line camera is one the more accurate means of deciding an outcome compared to how, at times decisions about a result (in cycling and other sports) are based on arbitrary decisions and defy logic. Giant storm and mudslides on the key stage to determine the winner of the Tour de France? Race officials: “we’ll just say the race ended (throws dart on map on wall) here. And we’ll tell some riders about it now but tell others later.” Or WC victories determined by a penalty kick on a questionable call? My favorite, though, is the NFL. Next to scoring a touchdown the most important aspect of the game is getting 1st downs. And how do they decide where the ball should be placed to determine a 1st down? An old guy runs in from 20 meters away and puts his foot down to “mark” the spot, obviously aided by the GPS device in their big toe. And if it’s still too close to call? Do they use a laser like in discus event? Nope. Two more old guys run out with sticks and chains to make the measurements. Talk about medieval. And yes there’s instant reply, but the camera angle is virtually never even close to correct to avoid distorting the view. I could go on about other sports where decisions get made that are arbitrary or biased. Compared to that a finish line camera shot is incredibly dependable and all participants have agreed it is the appropriate way to make a decision!
 
This is not really controversial and is quite frankly, silly. WvA won the race, TP was second. Other concepts about who crossed the line first are just going to become revisionist rhetoric.
I realize my insolence before the self-appointed arbitrators of licit thought and judgment like yourself must be maddening, but if divergent views contrary to official results can only become "revisionist rhetoric" then I think its time you did some soul-searching.
 
Last edited:
The weird thing about some folks being aghast at a rider being “robbed” is that the finish -line camera is one the more accurate means of deciding an outcome compared to how, at times decisions about a result (in cycling and other sports) are based on arbitrary decisions and defy logic. Giant storm and mudslides on the key stage to determine the winner of the Tour de France? Race officials: “we’ll just say the race ended (throws dart on map on wall) here. And we’ll tell some riders about it now but tell others later.” Or WC victories determined by a penalty kick on a questionable call? My favorite, though, is the NFL. Next to scoring a touchdown the most important aspect of the game is getting 1st downs. And how do they decide where the ball should be placed to determine a 1st down? An old guy runs in from 20 meters away and puts his foot down to “mark” the spot, obviously aided by the GPS device in their big toe. And if it’s still too close to call? Do they use a laser like in discus event? Nope. Two more old guys run out with sticks and chains to make the measurements. Talk about medieval. And yes there’s instant reply, but the camera angle is virtually never even close to correct to avoid distorting the view. I could go on about other sports where decisions get made that are arbitrary or biased. Compared to that a finish line camera shot is incredibly dependable and all participants have agreed it is the appropriate way to make a decision!
You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is questioniong the use of photo-finish technology, but the current means of its deployment. Had you realized that you would have saved yourself much spilled ink over nothing.
 
My point is: Winner can be discussed, it's hard to tell, depends on where you put the line. The line was drawn by a jury. The drawing of the line is questionable, but that would be so if it was drawn somewhere else. Since it was so close that no rider could make a clear difference, the riders brought themselves into this situation where a jury has to decide. So they have to accept the verdict. (And Pidcock did.)

Besides this was Amstel gold, not the WC, not the Olympics, not the Tour, where there's a jersey, money, sponsors as a consequence. Not much financial difference. It's simply a sportive decision.

Feudal mentality? You make it sound like the fate of the world depends on this decision. If this was so, be assured, I'd be more passionate.
It's called having a debate. The "feudal mentality" remark was just for dramatic effect, in case you were wondering, in reaction to what I thought was an extreme position that seemed to condemn even holding a divergent view. What I don't get is why some have reacted so sensitively to a disagreement and only, apparently, because it goes against the grain of what's tacilty known as officialdom. It's like it brings to the fore people's own anxiety over having something secure to latch on to in terms of being right (and beat over the head with anybody who dares to think otherwise).
 
Last edited:
If I were Pidcock, I'd be sceptical of the final verdict.

This picture shows the situation after the finishline.... and Van Aert his front wheel is off the ground. This gives a distorted picture. In reality, his front wheel is a lot further over the line. The photo finish was very clear. The win was for Van Aert.
 
I'm afraid there is nothing clearly about it.

But yes, of course it's the black line which is the finish line...
No, the virtual photo finish line is the only correct finish line. And Van Aert was without a doubt the first to cross the photo finish line. Discussion closed. You can't change the rules during or after the race..... because your favorite didn't win.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS