Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[gazr99]

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.

Agreed

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

This rule of having your bike when you run needs to be clarified. Because if it is true you must have your bike the decision as it now stands is totally incorrect and he should be penalized, not rewarded. It smacks of favoritism now but if he broke a DQable rule it's just plain wrong he isn't penalized in some fashion.

What's there to clarify?

You only need a bike when you cross the line, there's no compulsion to have one at any other time!

That's not entirely true as race incident 14 states

"Willfull deviation from the course, attempt to be placed without having covered the entire course by bycicle, resuming the race after having received a lift in a vehicle or on a motorbike."

All depends on how you interpret the rules

As I see it, the purpose of the rule "cover the entire course by bicycle" prohibits rider from using other means of transport - a car, a train, a skateboard. I do not think it prohibits using your feet, with or without bicycle (need to actually have a bicycle with you is regulated by the other rule above, i.e. only when crossing the finish).

If not riding a bike during the entire course was really prohibited as per that rule, you would have to penalise all riders pushing their bikes up the bergs in Flanders or walking up those steep streets in Tirreno a few years back, because neither they covered the course "by bicycle".

 

[freddybobs]

It is down to the organisers to protect the riders from the crowd, road furniture, motos, etc. (a rider's own stupidity and racing incidents are another matter). They failed to do that in this situation and so it is unfair to penalise the riders and I feel the correct decision was taken. Is the correct decision always taken? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it should not have been taken in this situation.

 

[King Boonen]

ITV reported that Froome & Brailsford were with the race commissioners when they were deliberating the decision.

That's not appropriate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Trudgin/status/753711191307026432

This cannot be true?

I wonder how much of this **** will happen before we get more transparency, honesty, or before enough people start asking questions. If that's true that's sickening

Err... They are meant to be there.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

It is down to the organisers to protect the riders from the crowd, road furniture, motos, etc. (a rider's own stupidity and racing incidents are another matter). They failed to do that in this situation and so it is unfair to penalise the riders and I feel the correct decision was taken. Is the correct decision always taken? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it should not have been taken in this situation.

So would you say that in the future anytime a rider crashes caused by road furniture, or a poor road surface, or other things that the organisers are responsible for, the race should be neutralized?

What about if a rider crashes into another rider who has gone down through his own fault? They are not responsible for it, but do you just say hard luck in that situation?

There needs to be real clarity on where the line is drawn regarding this kind of neutralization. Otherwise there will rightly be accusations of inconsistency, with the biggest riders benefitting the most, and the race not being a level playing field.

 

[Electress]

ITV reported that Froome & Brailsford were with the race commissioners when they were deliberating the decision.

That's not appropriate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Trudgin/status/753711191307026432

Perhaps they were called in there to give their evidence on the day's events? Not to help make a decision. Just my speculation much like the statement ITV made was media speculation.

That's feasible. However, it isn't what the piece implies.

Shouldn't there be a standard process for the jury which is demonstrably independent? As ever, these things just seem to be 'made up on the spot' with cycling. It doesn't help address the 'undue influence' stuff Sky get labelled with.

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Think this was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Overall my feeling is that it was the correct decision but do wonder if decision would have been different had Froome/a genuine GC con tender in yellow not been involved.

However what does leave a sour taste is the quite cynical neutralisation of the race following the crash of Gerrans and Stannard. Quite clearly called for by Froome. This effectively meant that instead of losing 2 domestiques (Stannard and Rowe) he gained Landa and Nieve and the peleton got back together.

I can't see Movistar, Ettix or Orica being so deferential in any future mishap.

 

[claude cat]

Think this was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Overall my feeling is that it was the correct decision but do wonder if decision would have been different had Froome/a genuine GC con tender in yellow not been involved.

I suspect if it was just Porte that went down and Froome was ok, then we might have seen a different decision.

 

[freddybobs]

Re: Re:

It is down to the organisers to protect the riders from the crowd, road furniture, motos, etc. (a rider's own stupidity and racing incidents are another matter). They failed to do that in this situation and so it is unfair to penalise the riders and I feel the correct decision was taken. Is the correct decision always taken? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it should not have been taken in this situation.

So would you say that in the future anytime a rider crashes caused by road furniture, or a poor road surface, or other things that the organisers are responsible for, the race should be neutralized?

What about if a rider crashes into another rider who has gone down through his own fault? They are not responsible for it, but do you just say hard luck in that situation?

There needs to be real clarity on where the line is drawn regarding this kind of neutralization. Otherwise there will rightly be accusations of inconsistency, with the biggest riders benefitting the most, and the race not being a level playing field.

I agree. I don't think there is a clear and easy answer. Being so close to the finish possibly made this decision a bit easier. Only time will tell if it affects the outcome of the race - I hope it doesn't.

 

[gazr99]

Think this was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Overall my feeling is that it was the correct decision but do wonder if decision would have been different had Froome/a genuine GC con tender in yellow not been involved.

However what does leave a sour taste is the quite cynical neutralisation of the race following the crash of Gerrans and Stannard. Quite clearly called for by Froome. This effectively meant that instead of losing 2 domestiques (Stannard and Rowe) he gained Landa and Nieve and the peleton got back together.

I can't see Movistar, Ettix or Orica being so deferential in any future mishap.

Basically this, can't think of any other time the peloton has waited for domestiques. Didn't know Froome even in yellow had that power

 

[bambino]

I'm not against the decision, but indeed UCI needs to follow this decision from now until forever for any crashes/time loss caused by spectators. Otherwise they will always be questioned to favor leaders/big teams.

Cycling itself is also distancing itself from other sports with this decision, i.e. in marathon there are examples even from Olympics where the leader has been pushed by spectator and fallen down in positions. Did he get gold medal afterwards? No. Why should cycling start making own interpretations around what is racing accident and what is not and if it is necessary, then written rules how such incidents are ALWAYS handled should exist.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

And manages to do this:

https://twitter.com/assekevin/status/753720450551836673

...

 

[gazr99]

Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

But from the looks of this and other threads only Froome was awarded time

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

And manages to do this:

https://twitter.com/assekevin/status/753720450551836673

...

Should he be punished for that, he was one of the biggest winners from the crash as well

 

[King Of Molehill]

Re: Re:

The TDF used to be about survival. A rider had to deal with his own mess, whatever it was. What's happened to the TDF? Guys used to have to ride up and over the Alps on gravel roads with their own tools and tires around their necks. I know the modern sport is different. But why can't the philosophy be the same? I disagree with today's decision and I think it makes the TDF seem soft. Less about survival at all costs. I'm not a fan of Froome but today he gained my respect for dealing with his **** in the way he did. He legged it! That was amazing. And in my opinion, the TDF has reduced the significance of it by reversing their decision. This could have been legendary stuff for Froome but will become less so now, I believe.

Side-note, I remember watching Claudio Chiappucci riding up Sestriere in 92 when the exact same thing happened. Except Claudio avoided faceplanting into the motorcycle and went around. From there on up Claudio was parting the crowd, not the moto's. That was epic.

Cars used to have skinny tyres, pathetic brakes and no airbags once too. Its called progress. Have you ridden in 125km/h winds on a mountain? Because that is what the official weather Forecast for Ventoux was. If you are warned and you ignore the experts warning and there is a serious incident attributed to the wind who gets sued? How about spectators and motos thrown into the mix in those winds? A moto would get thrown around like confetti in such gusts let alone a 7kg bike with a 60kg rider sitting on it. Today was avoidable carnage. But shortening the stage was the right decision based upon the available information. You should also add Andy Hampsten in the 1988 Giro. Now that was epic.

That focus on progress, as you say, I would argue is slowly taking away the heart of the sport, the sorts of things that can make it iconic or allow for those epic moments that we mention. To be clear I don't disagree with the decision to shorten the Ventoux stage because there is a limit as to what sort of dangers the riders should face. However, those limits, in general, of what risks commissionaires are willing to take nowadays have come down too much in my opinion and it's not for progress sake.

I have, by-the-way, ridden in winds so strong across a bridge that I had to get off and walk and even that was difficult. How much trust do we give the riders to take care of themselves?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

So Quintana pulled a Nibali?

 

[bambino]

Though very unlikely, but knowing the history of cycling, I can't help myself from a thought of some teams thinking of deploying random spectators to summit finishes to push their own rider "accidentally" down in case there is a real danger of cracking from leading group to neutralize any possible time lost.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

That depends on your perspective. Quintana would have been delighted to have accepted the results as they stood on the line. The neutralization has overall been negative for him - he'd probably be favourite for the race without it.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

That depends on your perspective. Quintana would have been delighted to have accepted the results as they stood on the line. The neutralization has overall been negative for him - he'd probably be favourite for the race without it.

The benchmark should be time gaps without the crash.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

That depends on your perspective. Quintana would have been delighted to have accepted the results as they stood on the line. The neutralization has overall been negative for him - he'd probably be favourite for the race without it.

The benchmark should be time gaps without the crash.

Well yes, he clearly benefitted from the incident to Froome. But, he certainly didn't benefit overall from the subsequent neutralization.

Not sure he is really a 'winner' from this when his position has been made worse by an artificial adjustment from the race organisers.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'm not a commisaire or a race jury, so I can't say what would have been the best decision. However, I do believe that the people making the decision knew what they were doing, and so does everyone involved.
It wasn't just a case of spectators getting in the way, it was a case of spectators getting in the way at a place where they shouldn't even have been able to get onto the road, because there should've been barriers.

Funny little detail:
Before the final decision had been made, when the provisional standing indicated that Yates would get the jersey, Danish TV talked to Carsten Jeppesen from Sky. When they spoke about how Froome lost the jersey, Jeppesen didn't argue, did tell them to await the jury's decision. So he at least seems to have accepted if Froome had indeed lost the jersey.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Quintana benefitted overall from the affair, though.

 

[kwikki]

Absolutely. One minute before the incident his tour was over.

I think the most interesting response is Yates's. After all, if the times had stood he would have been in yellow today.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that the big "winner" today was Quintana, who saw a +30 s gap turn into a 19 s loss.

That depends on your perspective. Quintana would have been delighted to have accepted the results as they stood on the line. The neutralization has overall been negative for him - he'd probably be favourite for the race without it.

If they applied the rules properly Quintana would be out of the race right now. Overall everyone except Mollema benefited in some way from the crash or the result change.