Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

Page 334 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@RedheadDane

Best if you read what Roglič actually said. And there your will find the answer to the edited question. Answer being next time use your head.

That is lets say next time you are sprinting, defending your line regardless of the outcome and suddenly you notice a hurt magpie in your line. Just able to wave with one wing.

Now you do have two options. On how to tackle such situation. You do know that?

Or where you a sprinter and just have such mentality. That there is only one thing one can do. Confronted with such situation.
 
Ok then - what is the difference between “riding without care and attention” and “reckless riding” and by whom is the latter considered more severe offence?
At minimum it comes down to things like difference in intention and in regards to making decisions.

P.S. You can look that up on the internet. It's a rather common thing and hence it should be well explained.
 
At minimum it comes down to things like difference in intention and in regards to making decisions.

P.S. You can look that up on the internet. It's a rather common thing and hence it should be well explained.
I did check on the internet. You know what it says? That reckless comes from and old germanic word “reck”, which means care…
 
At minimum it comes down to things like difference in intention and in regards to making decisions.

P.S. You can look that up on the internet. It's a rather common thing and hence it should be well explained.
If it's just down to intention how can you say for certain that Roglič wasn't intentionally deviating from his line to take position from Wright?

In this instance how is Wright meant to judge whether what Roglič is doing is intentional or not?

If it is always down to the rider behind to judge what the rider in front is both doing and intending to do, doesn't this just encourage the rider in front to act dangerously (with plausible deniability) to defend or obtain a better racing position?

Doens't this essentially mean that Dylan Groenewegen's sprint in Tour de Pologne was permissable (lack of care and attention) and Fabio Jakobsen was the rider committing the fault of sprinting recklessly?
 
AFAIK magpies are not such a big issue. It's the bulls that felt they could stomp the goats. Like all the time. And to get away with it. And now when one goat has grown some balls. All in all big ball goats have hence now become an issue for the bulls.

Some day i am sure that magpies will be able to contest the sprints too. Still long way to that. Lets first get the goats through safely. And build on that.
Goats get eaten.
Magpies and bulls generally do not.
 
@RedheadDane

Best if you read what Roglič actually said. And there your will find the answer to the edited question. Answer being next time use your head.
If, as Roglic claims, what Wright did was wrong, then it would also have been wrong if it had been Roglic doing it.
But of course, in reality it wasn't wrong when Wright did it, and thus wouldn't have been wrong if it had been Roglic doing it.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Okay boys time for a couple of piss takes

  1. Roglic knows the third week parcours is ass, and decided he would commit to still create drama for the Vuelta.
  2. LRCP advised Jumbo to do this just so they could publicly disagree and pretend to be impartial.
  3. Jumbo just extended Sven Kramers contract as a consultant, who is well known for taking the wrong lane.
superb post!! I particularly like #2.
 
@SHAD0W93

Literary the first comment on Eurosport was on why he didn't just move away. And everything would be fine.

He didn't do that because he is a sprinter.
That’s all fine and dandy but I said that no one has said that on this forum or thread.

I never said he wasn’t, but it’s also his responsibility not to deviate from his line and not crash into someone.


But anyway; I don't think you ever actually answered my question...

If Wright had been the one in front, deviating from his line, while Roglic had been the coming from behind, would you then have said that it was Roglic who caused the crash?
Or would Roglic - in that case, correctly - have stated that Wright caused the crash, by deviating from his line, and since you seem to think that everything Roglic says is correct, you would have agreed with him?
Be out with the pitchforks trying to get Wright for attempted murder.


@RedheadDane

Best if you read what Roglič actually said. And there your will find the answer to the edited question. Answer being next time use your head.
Maybe this is part of the problem. Roglic used his head to take the impact in order to protect his collarbone and he got a concussion.
 
@bNator

This are well established legal terms. Best if you take it from there. As if we would now start to have some linguistic debates. I don't see what would be the real point in doing that.

@EliseeReclus

You still wouldn't get a free pass. That is if the rider in front of you would deviate from the line intentionally. That is still not giving you permission to cause a crash. Back off and result to other possible solutions. If you feel you were denied of a sprint. Take it to officials and get the rider relegated.

@jmdirt

Yeah Wright was clearly coming from the front.

@SHAD0W93

I said people in general not only on this forum. But for sure it happened on this forum too.

@all

I am sure that Roglič and Wright will sort it out at Il Lombardia. As one sprinter to another sprinter. One thing that might happen is the giraffe effect. All sprinters pushing their neck out. Making sure they are riding with do care and attention and aren't doing anything reckless. As pretty much any sprinter knows it's likely them that will hit the deck tomorrow. And to most of people out there it will be just pure entertainment. And obviously it will be their fault.

100%.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
@bNator

This are well established legal terms. Best if you take it from there. As if we would now start to have some linguistic debates. I don't see what would be the real point in doing that.

@EliseeReclus

You still wouldn't get a free pass. That is if the rider in front of you would deviate from the line intentionally. That is still not giving you permission to cause a crash. Back off and result to other possible solutions. If you feel you were denied of a sprint. Take it to officials and get the rider relegated.

@jmdirt

Yeah Wright was clearly coming from the front.

@SHAD0W93

I said people in general not only on this forum. But for sure it happened on this forum too.

@all

I am sure that Roglič and Wright will sort it out at Il Lombardia. As one sprinter to another sprinter. One thing that might happen is the giraffe effect. All sprinters pushing their neck out. Making sure they are riding with do care and attention and aren't doing anything reckless. As pretty much any sprinter knows it's likely them that will hit the deck tomorrow. And to most of people out there it will be just pure entertainment. And obviously it will be their fault.

100%.
Yeah Wright was clearly coming from the front.
Being a shifter doesn't strengthen your argument.

What you are saying is that if you are ahead of a rider on the road you can go anywhere you want no matter what your speed is.

The earth is NOT flat.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93 and bNator
@bNator
This are well established legal terms. Best if you take it from there. As if we would now start to have some linguistic debates. I don't see what would be the real point in doing that.
And I don’t see the point debating if you just keep repeating your unfounded claims. If you have any source to support you claim then I’ll be happy to change my mind as I often have in the past. “Believe me, it’s like I said” doesn’t do for me…
 
Reactions: firefly3323
@EliseeReclus

You still wouldn't get a free pass. That is if the rider in front of you would deviate from the line intentionally. That is still not giving you permission to cause a crash. Back off and result to other possible solutions. If you feel you were denied of a sprint. Take it to officials and get the rider relegated.

@jmdirt

Yeah Wright was clearly coming from the front.
That’s the thing, Wright and Roglic we’re coexisting just fine alongside the other before Wright started to pass Roglic and Roglic deviated even further to crash into the back of Wright’s elbow.

Wright was in front by the time any collision happened between the two. Wright doesn’t have eyes in the back of his head.
 
I find the Roglic thread intolerable these days. I know this is a discussion forum and everyone is free to discuss what they want and so on, but can we just move on from the Wright thing unless something new surfaces?

-A Roglic Fan
If this forum is a kitchen, this and the Remco thread are basically the pot on the stove that’s always cooking and there’s the occasional boil over when even the slightest controversy happens, particularly when there’s down time between races.
 
@bNator

This are well established legal terms. Best if you take it from there. As if we would now start to have some linguistic debates. I don't see what would be the real point in doing that.
And you know what, I’m feeling frisky enough to enter the legal debate. I live in Nevada so will use that NRS law which shouldn’t really differ across the 50 states on this subject and I would assume be the same laws world wide. Thankfully I do have the law and references that help describe these terms for us. Now I’m not a lawyer but I have sued some individuals in my time and have had to research the law extensively for those issues. I think some after reading this point just might be surprised and change their view as they see a rider committed both of these “legal terms”, or stay in their ways.

For these two terms that are being used “riding without do care and attention” and “reckless riding”, would be classified legally as negligence and reckless endangerment respectively.

Negligence/“riding without do care and attention” is defined under NRS law as:
  1. The defendant had a duty of reasonable care;
  2. The defendant breached this standard of care;
  3. This breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
  4. These injuries resulted in a financial loss

Reckless endangerment/“reckless riding” is defined under NRS law as:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:


1.  If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.

2.  If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

.


Based on the three video angle evidence we have available to us, the facts of the matter are:
Roglic was riding at the front of the group,
Roglic swung off the front to the side of the road and started riding slower,
Roglic started his sprint, rode back to the right side of the road, and rode on the left side of the white line,
Wright was coming up faster from behind and stayed on the right side of the road and right side of the white line,
Wright came alongside Roglic with neither touching the other or deviating,
Wright started to pass Roglic without touching him,
Rolgic deviated from his line further towards the right side of the road,
Rolgic rode over the white line and on the right side of it,
Roglic crashed into the back of Wright’s right elbow with his left elbow and handlebar,
Wright never deviated from his line,
And finally Roglic crashed.


Now based off the evidence and the way the law is written and explained to us, Wright was neither negligent or reckless. Wright never left his line, nor did he initiate contact with Roglic.

On the other hand, Roglic was and would be found in the court of law if Wright were to sue him of negligence and recklessness!

  1. The defendant had a duty of reasonable care;
  2. The defendant breached this standard of care;
  3. This breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
  4. These injuries resulted in a financial loss
  1. Roglic knows that it is required by him through UCI rules not to deviate from his line during a sprint. Roglic knows the reason the rule is in place is for rider safety from crashes in the past.
  2. Roglic clearly deviated from his sprint multiple times in the video evidence.
  3. Wright was injured due to Roglic crashing into the back of his elbow AND Roglic’s defamatory libel and slander statement that Wright was the cause of the crash and injuries Roglic received.
  4. Wright might become affected come contract time or sponsorships due to Roglic’s statements. Wright has clearly been affected by the defamatory statements with many falsely believing them to be true.
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:


1.  If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.

2.  If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

A. Rolgic knows the UCI rules in regards to line deviation in a sprint. Roglic knows the risks that can happen if he deviated from his line. Roglic willingly swung his line from the left side of the road to the right. Roglic started his sprint and swung back to the right side of the road and to the left of the white line. Roglic left his line, went passed the white line, and on the right side of it. Roglic crashed into Wright.
  1. No harm as far as we know has occurred to Wright’s elbow.
  2. If Wright would have crashed and suffered harm, Roglic would have been found guilty of a felony.
Thus answers the debate between @CyclistAbi and @bNator.
 
Two weeks gone and still discussing this. Can I take the opportunity to ask how many times does he need to crash before he switches to a different sport?
That question may have been asked when he was a ski jumper, too.

I actually think it's the opportunity for bad wordplay that keep the Wright thread going, even in the ... wrong direction. See how easy that was?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY