• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 147 51.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 76 26.7%
  • Idc but it was hilarious!

    Votes: 24 8.4%
  • Vino would have ran past Mollemma

    Votes: 38 13.3%

  • Total voters
    285
  • Poll closed .
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
Re:

rick james said:
If the others do beat Froome it's should be fair and square on the road, not because he lost time because they idiot fans couldn't control themselves

Can't agree more, I still don't understand how people can think otherwise. The people who you can say were most unlucky were Mollema (but not sire how he could be given bonus seconds) and Yates as he left Quintana behind who has probably gained more than anyone.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
Re:

SoigneurNL said:
Bad decision. Why should Froome and Porte get Mollema's time? Would Porte and Mollema have fitten Froome's time if Froome was able to ride further and Mollema wasn't? I dont think so, so it's a bad decision from the uci.

Of course they should have, you can't presume they wouldn't have got the same time if Froome had carried on. Same way you can't guess what would have happened in the last km
 
Re:

hfer07 said:
In principle YES - but what Juan Antonio Flecha said on ES is correct too, since similar incidents have occurred in the past with the referees NOT REVERTING THE RESULTS AT ALL- so why this time should be the exception?

well they kinda did when 1km gate knock rider down few days ago. i believe some other cases occurred in the past with various jury decisions too. not remembering specific one though.
if the rules were applied strictly LA would be DQ after his CX section, 1/2 of the peloton would be DQed whenever they'd pass the closed railways etc.
 
Re:

I don't get what's the big difference, from Froome's point of view, between crashing because a rider in front of you (Porte) hits a moto/fan and crashing because a rider in front of you just crashes. In both cases he is not at fault, it's something outside of his influence, but in one case you get seconds back and in the other everyone just says "tough luck, that's racing". How is that fair? (when everyone talks some much about "fairness")

And if this is now the rule, what would happen if someone like Meintjes (who is fighting for a GC result) crashes because of a more or less similar situation 5 km from the MTF while riding at the back of the group of the favourites? What time does he get?
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
Does anyone know what the time difference was between Froome's group and the group behind was at the time of the crash. People claiming the group behind have gained time but Orica's behind the scenes video suggests it was about 20 seconds and the times awarded there's actually a 28 second gap so Mollema might have gained time
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
MartinGT said:
Daniel Baal
‏@baal_baal
#TDF2016 Une décision des commissaires inique et injuste. D'autres coureurs bloqués n'ont pas eu droit au traitement de faveur de Froome.


That's wrong Froome and Porte were given same time as Mollema, group behind same time as Yates and the gap may have been increased after the crash
 
Re: Re:

kareeem said:
I don't get what's the big difference, from Froome's point of view, between crashing because a rider in front of you (Porte) hits a moto/fan and crashing because a rider in front of you just crashes. In both cases he is not at fault, it's something outside of his influence, but in one case you get seconds back and in the other everyone just says "tough luck, that's racing". How is that fair? (when everyone talks some much about "fairness")

And if this is now the rule, what would happen if someone like Meintjes (who is fighting for a GC result) crashes because of a more or less similar situation 5 km from the MTF while riding at the back of the group of the favourites? What time does he get?
Great post. It was a racing incident; something unusual admittedly, but still just a racing incident. It wasn't even a serious pile up, everyone was back on their feet straight away and Froome would have lost very limited time if his super new lightweight bike hadn't been made of polystyrene.

For consistency, in the future, every time a rider crashes into a pile-up, or gets a flat from debris on the road, or has a mechanical due to something getting stuck in their drivetrain I guess the race will be neutralized. Because it wouldn't be there fault at all. And of course, the same rules should apply whether the rider is in the yellow jersey or 25th on the GC.
 
Jul 7, 2014
149
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
kareeem said:
I don't get what's the big difference, from Froome's point of view, between crashing because a rider in front of you (Porte) hits a moto/fan and crashing because a rider in front of you just crashes. In both cases he is not at fault, it's something outside of his influence, but in one case you get seconds back and in the other everyone just says "tough luck, that's racing". How is that fair? (when everyone talks some much about "fairness")

And if this is now the rule, what would happen if someone like Meintjes (who is fighting for a GC result) crashes because of a more or less similar situation 5 km from the MTF while riding at the back of the group of the favourites? What time does he get?
Great post. It was a racing incident; something unusual admittedly, but still just a racing incident. It wasn't even a serious pile up, everyone was back on their feet straight away and Froome would have lost very limited time if his super new lightweight bike hadn't been made of polystyrene.

For consistency, in the future, every time a rider crashes into a pile-up, or gets a flat from debris on the road, or has a mechanical due to something getting stuck in their drivetrain I guess the race will be neutralized. Because it wouldn't be there fault at all. And of course, the same rules should apply whether the rider is in the yellow jersey or 25th on the GC.

Stop to be hypocrite. You just can't send the message to the spectators than they can chose who deserve to win the race. You don't like Froome ? No problem, just call your friends and block the road !
Yes, the leader of the race has to be protected, even if you find it "unfair". Because any other decision would lead to very ugly things.
 
Re: Re:

difdauf said:
Stop to be hypocrite. You just can't send the message to the spectators than they can chose who deserve to win the race. You don't like Froome ? No problem, just call your friends and block the road !
Yes, the leader of the race has to be protected, even if you find it "unfair". Because any other decision would lead to very ugly things.
The leader of the race certainly shouldn't be protected any more than any other rider. Protecting the leader above others would be hypocritical and would distort the competition, as it would then not be a level playing field. Why protect 1st position but not 2nd or 10th during the race?

The point about fans blocking the road isn't really relevant to making a decision in this case. It has rarely if ever happened, and didn't happen in this incident by all accounts. If fans did something like that deliberately, then they would get arrested and thrown in prison for a few weeks; I think that's enough of a deterrent to stop a few friends from acting up.
 
Re: Re:

difdauf said:
Stop to be hypocrite. You just can't send the message to the spectators than they can chose who deserve to win the race. You don't like Froome ? No problem, just call your friends and block the road !
Yes, the leader of the race has to be protected, even if you find it "unfair". Because any other decision would lead to very ugly things.

It's the organisation's job to protect the riders actively, during the race, not re-actively by adjusting the results to what 'feels right'.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Walkman said:
blackcat said:
what woulda been good was if the commissaires heard his protest, then gave him a 30second penalty for running in the race.

Is there a rule saying you can't run in the race? Or is it that you have to stand still and wait or a bike? Because then you shouldn't be walking either...

You can run but you need to be carrying your bike. The fact that I knew this before today's stage but a two time TdF winner didn't is absolutely ridiculous

no, he certainly knew PA. but Sky act, and CF act with impunity, and make up things on the spot that suits them. ie. lies.

that is why Froome said "someone stole his bike"[sic] /words to that effect.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Walkman said:
The wind stopped the motorbike?

They could have had 3 bikes pacing in front of the riders to clear the path, has been done numerous times in the past. Lemond even brought it up himself.

yeah david copperfield brah
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
PremierAndrew said:
Walkman said:
blackcat said:
what woulda been good was if the commissaires heard his protest, then gave him a 30second penalty for running in the race.

Is there a rule saying you can't run in the race? Or is it that you have to stand still and wait or a bike? Because then you shouldn't be walking either...

You can run but you need to be carrying your bike. The fact that I knew this before today's stage but a two time TdF winner didn't is absolutely ridiculous

no, he certainly knew PA. but Sky act, and CF act with impunity, and make up things on the spot that suits them. ie. lies.

that is why Froome said "someone stole his bike"[sic] /words to that effect.

No he didn't say that, I heard he gave it to a photographer or something because the seat stay had broke. They later recovered the bike and it was even checked for a motor
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
difdauf said:
Stop to be hypocrite. You just can't send the message to the spectators than they can chose who deserve to win the race. You don't like Froome ? No problem, just call your friends and block the road !
Yes, the leader of the race has to be protected, even if you find it "unfair". Because any other decision would lead to very ugly things.
The leader of the race certainly shouldn't be protected any more than any other rider. Protecting the leader above others would be hypocritical and would distort the competition, as it would then not be a level playing field. Why protect 1st position but not 2nd or 10th during the race?

The point about fans blocking the road isn't really relevant to making a decision in this case. It has rarely if ever happened, and didn't happen in this incident by all accounts. If fans did something like that deliberately, then they would get arrested and thrown in prison for a few weeks; I think that's enough of a deterrent to stop a few friends from acting up.

I could sign this, well written!
 
There have been a few posts saying that Froome should not be given the same time as Mollema because he crashed and that is his fault for being too close etc. Firstly, I those crowds You had to be close, if you weren't then the gap would just give the did carries yet more opportunity to get too close. If the bike was 10m ahead then Poter would have had zero room, they seemingly were only getting through because of the hole punched by the bike.

Secondly it's not Froome crashing that caused him to lose time in Mollema, who also crashed. It is the mavic service bike driving over his bike that caused the damage that prevented him resuming alongside Mollema.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
difdauf said:
Stop to be hypocrite. You just can't send the message to the spectators than they can chose who deserve to win the race. You don't like Froome ? No problem, just call your friends and block the road !
Yes, the leader of the race has to be protected, even if you find it "unfair". Because any other decision would lead to very ugly things.
The leader of the race certainly shouldn't be protected any more than any other rider. Protecting the leader above others would be hypocritical and would distort the competition, as it would then not be a level playing field. Why protect 1st position but not 2nd or 10th during the race?

The point about fans blocking the road isn't really relevant to making a decision in this case. It has rarely if ever happened, and didn't happen in this incident by all accounts. If fans did something like that deliberately, then they would get arrested and thrown in prison for a few weeks; I think that's enough of a deterrent to stop a few friends from acting up.

Of course it's relevant unless your saying the fans in the road did not play a part in causing the crash. Many said they have never seen it so cramped. I can count 3 occasions on top of my head including this one where fans have collided with riders. Deliberate or not is not certain at this point in time, but it definitely caused the crash

Can people stop suggesting this is purely about protecting Froome as this is plain wrong and deliberately misleading. Porte also got the same time after the crash caused him to change wheels, the crash also held up the group behind and led to Quintana who was in a world of hurt benefitting from being given the same time as Adam Yates.