Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[King Boonen]

Re:

So Quintana pulled a Nibali?

Yep. I remember the outcry when Cav was accused of this. That was just a sprinter trying to make it to the end. This is a supposed GC contender.

 

[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.

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.

Yates and Mollema were the biggest losers out of this farcical situation

 

[DFA123]

Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

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

If the times had stood from the incident on stage seven, then he would've been quite some time behind.
That's not to diminish how much of a champion Yates is for accepting that Froome kept the jersey, quite contrary in fact; he accepts that with the arch-incident the ruling worked in his favour, but that in this case it didn't.

 

[kareeem]

I think the big issue is that this "decision" is completely arbitrary and blatantly unfair, unless they apply the same standards for everyone who is fighting for gc positions (others won't even care that much about a couple of minutes, I assume). Next time something like this happens (and I believe it's, unfortuantely, just a question of time) nobody knows what the jury will decide. Does it matter how far away from the finish line it happens? 3 kms? What about 10? Hell, what about 50 kms? And as I said before, does the same thing apply for someone who is fighting for a top 10 GC position and crashes when they are all still in a group 10 km from the finish? What time does he get then?

 

[wwabbit]

Re: Re:

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?

Adam Yates was 13th when he was 'protected' on Stage 7.
Richie Porte was 14th when he was 'protected' on Stage 12.

You'll find that GC riders are 'protected' more than non-GC riders, but that sort of makes sense, because the time loss is inconsequential for most other riders and so they don't bother appealing.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

I think the big issue is that this "decision" is completely arbitrary and blatantly unfair, unless they apply the same standards for everyone who is fighting for gc positions (others won't even care that much about a couple of minutes, I assume). Next time something like this happens (and I believe it's, unfortuantely, just a question of time) nobody knows what the jury will decide. Does it matter how far away from the finish line it happens? 3 kms? What about 10? Hell, what about 50 kms? And as I said before, does the same thing apply for someone who is fighting for a top 10 GC position and crashes when they are all still in a group 10 km from the finish? What time does he get then?

The others wait.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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?

Adam Yates was 13th when he was 'protected' on Stage 7.
Richie Porte was 14th when he was 'protected' on Stage 12.

You'll find that GC riders are 'protected' more than non-GC riders, but that sort of makes sense, because the time loss is inconsequential for most other riders and so they don't bother appealing.

Not sure why you've quoted my post out of context. I was responding to a post saying that the yellow jersey should get special treatment. It absolutely should not.

 

[Cookster15]

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?

I've twice ridden in winds that brought down trees right behind me - one of those was a 50 foot tree about 1 metre wide. Hit the road about 10 seconds after I and two others rode past that very point . But three riders riding in gales is completely different to nearly 200 riders racing amongst motos, cars and thousands of spectators. The danger is several orders of magnitude greater. I agree with you about the sport losing some of its romance and excitement. It is is a necessary restriction. There is still enough fun or else we wouldn't be following would we?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

It's all we have to go on.

Do we discount what Mollema said in public too, then?

 

[trucido]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

Why doesn't Yates just defer all his decision making to you? I mean from your statement above you clearly know him better than he knows himself.

 

[Poursuivant]

Maybe Quintana was holding on because he had slowed and had to keep his balance. It would be OTT to punish him for something after the crash, when essentially everything was neutralised up to that point, although I agree he got lucky he was looking at a 30"!deficit. Doesn't bode well for the rest of his Tour.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

It's all we have to go on.

Do we discount what Mollema said in public too, then?

I think Mollema has far less need to be diplomatic than Yates in this situation. He's also lost out more than anyone from this.

 

[Cookster15]

I think the big issue is that this "decision" is completely arbitrary and blatantly unfair, unless they apply the same standards for everyone who is fighting for gc positions (others won't even care that much about a couple of minutes, I assume). Next time something like this happens (and I believe it's, unfortuantely, just a question of time) nobody knows what the jury will decide. Does it matter how far away from the finish line it happens? 3 kms? What about 10? Hell, what about 50 kms? And as I said before, does the same thing apply for someone who is fighting for a top 10 GC position and crashes when they are all still in a group 10 km from the finish? What time does he get then?

The others wait.

That was about 10km from the finish at Luz Ardiden. Yesterday was 1 km from the finish. The decision was fine.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

Maybe Quintana was holding on because he had slowed and had to keep his balance. It would be OTT to punish him for something after the crash, when essentially everything was neutralised up to that point, although I agree he got lucky he was looking at a 30"!deficit. Doesn't bode well for the rest of his Tour.

He's holding on, pretty obvious, look at Valverde who was ahead of Quintana sprinting to catch and help him again

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

Why doesn't Yates just defer all his decision making to you? I mean from your statement above you clearly know him better than he knows himself.

That's a pretty embarrassing straw man you've constructed. It must be July again.

Professional sportsmen don't always say what they really believe in interviews; especially when they are closely involved with other riders that they are talking about. It might be the truth, it might not be - therefore, it's pretty meaningless to take too much from what he does or doesn't say.

 

[trucido]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

Why doesn't Yates just defer all his decision making to you? I mean from your statement above you clearly know him better than he knows himself.

That's a pretty embarrassing straw man you've constructed. It must be July again.

Professional sportsmen don't always say what they really believe in interviews; especially when they are closely involved with other riders that they are talking about. It might be the truth, it might not be - therefore, it's pretty meaningless to take too much from what he does or doesn't say.

You accuse people of straw man arguments and then proceed to make one of your own?

According to you we should completely ignore all statements from professional sportsmen if they involve their fellow competitors. I mean we can't be sure about the validity of their statements after all! Let's just formulate some conclusions based on some assumptions that fit our narrative.

What absolute nonsense.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

What Yates says in public is meaningless. He's going to be riding with Froome in a couple of weeks time and quite possibly has his eye on a move to Sky in the future. What he thinks in private about the decision could be completely different.

Why doesn't Yates just defer all his decision making to you? I mean from your statement above you clearly know him better than he knows himself.

That's a pretty embarrassing straw man you've constructed. It must be July again.

Professional sportsmen don't always say what they really believe in interviews; especially when they are closely involved with other riders that they are talking about. It might be the truth, it might not be - therefore, it's pretty meaningless to take too much from what he does or doesn't say.

You accuse people of straw man arguments and then proceed to make one of your own?

According to you we should completely ignore all statements from professional sportsmen if they involve their fellow competitors. I mean we can't be sure about the validity of their statements after all! Let's just formulate some conclusions based on some assumptions that fit our narrative.

What absolute nonsense.

Please stop mis-representing and twisting what I'm saying. If you're looking for a tiresome argument I suggest you go elsewhere.

 

[trucido]

Re: Re:

Please stop mis-representing and twisting what I'm saying. If you're looking for a tiresome argument I suggest you go elsewhere.

There was no misrepresentation whatsoever, or you have just failed to articulate your points in the manner that you intended.

But agreed, there is no point trying to debate nonsensical statements such as those you put forward here.

 

[Forever The Best]

I think it was the right decision.Because a crash like this is unacceptable.The moto just stopped.(probably it was because of spectators but still)
Though Quintana,Valverde and Van Garderen(he just blew up in the last km,right?) should get their normal times and not the Yates group time.
EDIT:Though Quintana should have been disqualified.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Don't know if this has already been posted, but this adds a bit to the controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gISk9PY8HnM

 

[Carols]

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

So all the folks saying he did break a rule aren't just making stuff up. Like I said needs clarifying!

 

[PremierAndrew]

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

Where did you find that? It's most certainly legal to run with your bike in your hands, and that's not 'covering the entire course by bicycle'. The question is whether it states anywhere in the rules that you aren't allowed to run without your bike at any point

 

[cocteau_ireland]

http://www.stickybottle.com/blogs/did-froome-abuse-his-yellow-jersey-status-at-tour-de-france/

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

Maybe Quintana was holding on because he had slowed and had to keep his balance. It would be OTT to punish him for something after the crash, when essentially everything was neutralised up to that point, although I agree he got lucky he was looking at a 30"!deficit. Doesn't bode well for the rest of his Tour.

agree