Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

Adam Yates was not wearing yellow on Stage 7.

Explain a little more...

 

[wwabbit]

Re: Re:

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

Adam Yates was not wearing yellow on Stage 7.

Explain a little more...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI_9hAePyCk
and he was given 'protected' time after.

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

While the bigger issue is that the Tour organizers have total egg on their face, once again, and this is looking like one of the worst Tour ever, hence their decision I think. But it brings up questions:

If Froome hadn't been in yellow, but DeGendt was before the day, would the ruling have stood?

If this had happened to DeGendt, Pauwels and Navarro, what would the organizers have done?

Bertjan Lindeman finished 2:52 back of DeGendt, but was ahead of the crash. What if this would have happened to him instead of Porte?

Pierre Roland, Geraint Thomas and Ilnur Zakarin were about a minute behind the Quintana group. What if this had happened to them?

I agree with whomever said it would have been a better story if they would have apologized for the chaos, but let the results stand (and waive punishing Froome for running without the bike). Having Froome take back yellow would have added drama. As is, he's going to easily win by over 5 minutes unless something happens.

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

 

[bikinggirl]

Re: Re:

This was the wrong decision. The UCI interfered only because it was all about a British rider . UCI is corrupt and have been corrupt for years and will stay corrupt as long Mr. Cookson is at the wheel. Why would Froome run away from his service car instead of wait for it? It would just take that much longer for him to get the correct bike. Well well...

Yeah a British rider was involved as was Dutch, Australian, Then Colombian, Spanish and American. Because he wanted to be closer to the line, probably panicked slightly, especially as the crowds would be hard for a car to get through.

There is only one yellow jersey.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

As they should.

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

While the bigger issue is that the Tour organizers have total egg on their face, once again, and this is looking like one of the worst Tour ever, hence their decision I think. But it brings up questions:

If Froome hadn't been in yellow, but DeGendt was before the day, would the ruling have stood?

If this had happened to DeGendt, Pauwels and Navarro, what would the organizers have done?

Bertjan Lindeman finished 2:52 back of DeGendt, but was ahead of the crash. What if this would have happened to him instead of Porte?

Pierre Roland, Geraint Thomas and Ilnur Zakarin were about a minute behind the Quintana group. What if this had happened to them?

I agree with whomever said it would have been a better story if they would have apologized for the chaos, but let the results stand (and waive punishing Froome for running without the bike). Having Froome take back yellow would have added drama. As is, he's going to easily win by over 5 minutes unless something happens.

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

That's the impression that's coming across strongly.

What was so exceptional about this incident that it warranted waiving a penalty for running up the course? They're giving the distinct impression that they will do anything for him not to lose a fraction of a second.

 

[gazr99]

The fact people are still more upset that Froome less than 100m because he has no bike, than Quintana who held onto a motorbike going up the hill, while no else in his group says it all about people in the forum trying to find reasons to hate Froome and match their conspiracy theories

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

While the bigger issue is that the Tour organizers have total egg on their face, once again, and this is looking like one of the worst Tour ever, hence their decision I think. But it brings up questions:

If Froome hadn't been in yellow, but DeGendt was before the day, would the ruling have stood?

If this had happened to DeGendt, Pauwels and Navarro, what would the organizers have done?

Bertjan Lindeman finished 2:52 back of DeGendt, but was ahead of the crash. What if this would have happened to him instead of Porte?

Pierre Roland, Geraint Thomas and Ilnur Zakarin were about a minute behind the Quintana group. What if this had happened to them?

I agree with whomever said it would have been a better story if they would have apologized for the chaos, but let the results stand (and waive punishing Froome for running without the bike). Having Froome take back yellow would have added drama. As is, he's going to easily win by over 5 minutes unless something happens.

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

Disqualified for running less than 100m after being taken out due to the tour's lack of control and having his bike broken by about a 5th/6th moto surrounding his group. This chaos and lack of control and the fact, I can't remember this happening to the yellow jersey while gaining time on rivals 1.2km from a major summit finish make it exceptional circumstances. They have basically neutralised the last 1.2km for the groups affected which is why he got the same time as Mollema (rightly so), and it wasn't like he gained anything from his little jog.

I find what Quintana did worse than Froome

 

[Walkman]

Re:

The fact people are still more upset that Froome less than 100m because he has no bike, than Quintana who held onto a motorbike going up the hill, while no else in his group says it all about people in the forum trying to find reasons to hate Froome and match their conspiracy theories

Pretty much. Imagine if it was the other way around.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

The fact people are still more upset that Froome less than 100m because he has no bike, than Quintana who held onto a motorbike going up the hill, while no else in his group says it all about people in the forum trying to find reasons to hate Froome and match their conspiracy theories

Correct.

 

[Journey Man]

Whilst I think the decision to keep Froome's gap was correct for that circumstance - poor crowd control from the organiser that meant the route was essentially impassible - I don't understand why the yellow jersey calling a halt to racing so his rides can get back on isn't being talked about. Would it have affected the dynamic of the final to have Froome isolated? Would he have been under attack? Would he have got the gap he did if he was minus his team mates? The peloton was already split when this happened.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/07/tour-de-france/froomes-abuse-of-yellow-was-movistars-missed-opportunity_414736

 

[gazr99]

Re:

Whilst I think the decision to keep Froome's gap was correct for that circumstance - poor crowd control from the organiser that meant the route was essentially impassible - I don't understand why the yellow jersey calling a halt to racing so his rides can get back on isn't being talked about. Would it have affected the dynamic of the final to have Froome isolated? Would he have been under attack? Would he have got the gap he did if he was minus his team mates? The peloton was already split when this happened.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/07/tour-de-france/froomes-abuse-of-yellow-was-movistars-missed-opportunity_414736

Don't agree with it but if the riders had an issue should have done something about it, they should have called Froome's bluff and gone, can't see Froome waiting much longer if that happened

 

[rick james]

Re:

The fact people are still more upset that Froome less than 100m because he has no bike, than Quintana who held onto a motorbike going up the hill, while no else in his group says it all about people in the forum trying to find reasons to hate Froome and match their conspiracy theories

Bang on the money

 

[tretiak]

Alot of money involved in TDF.

In the calmest water swim the ugliest fishes.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Every race has different commissaries, Hitch being bitter about Contador crashing in 2011 doesn't mean one wrong has to mean another wrong.

Lol.

Did you really launch this trolljob at me in a thread I wasn't even participating in? Hoping I wouldn't read it.
Nice to know.

That's right.
Let all that anger and obsession out.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

Whilst I think the decision to keep Froome's gap was correct for that circumstance - poor crowd control from the organiser that meant the route was essentially impassible - I don't understand why the yellow jersey calling a halt to racing so his rides can get back on isn't being talked about. Would it have affected the dynamic of the final to have Froome isolated? Would he have been under attack? Would he have got the gap he did if he was minus his team mates? The peloton was already split when this happened.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/07/tour-de-france/froomes-abuse-of-yellow-was-movistars-missed-opportunity_414736

I assumed the wind had something to do with it too. I think a combination of safety going downhill in those wind conditions and Froome taking a calculated risk that he might be ignored instead of the peloton slowing down.

Buut it would not surprise me if the next time something happens, they will just keep racing.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

While the bigger issue is that the Tour organizers have total egg on their face, once again, and this is looking like one of the worst Tour ever, hence their decision I think. But it brings up questions:

If Froome hadn't been in yellow, but DeGendt was before the day, would the ruling have stood?

If this had happened to DeGendt, Pauwels and Navarro, what would the organizers have done?

Bertjan Lindeman finished 2:52 back of DeGendt, but was ahead of the crash. What if this would have happened to him instead of Porte?

Pierre Roland, Geraint Thomas and Ilnur Zakarin were about a minute behind the Quintana group. What if this had happened to them?

I agree with whomever said it would have been a better story if they would have apologized for the chaos, but let the results stand (and waive punishing Froome for running without the bike). Having Froome take back yellow would have added drama. As is, he's going to easily win by over 5 minutes unless something happens.

Can't help but feel that the yellow jersey holder is being protected. I could be wrong though.

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

You're hatred/bitterness for Froome knows no bounds just because wonder boy is out. What about Quintana, free pass ? Pathetic.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

There's a video that shows that in fact the moto incident had nothing to do with a spectator going in front of the moto. It simply stalled. Therefore, this was more similar to Yates' flamme rouge incident than incidents like Contador's 2011 Tour. Not favouritism at all.

Coming from someone who 24 hours ago thought that Froome and Porte's times should not have been neutralised

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

There's a video that shows that in fact the moto incident had nothing to do with a spectator going in front of the moto. It simply stalled. Therefore, this was more similar to Yates' flamme rouge incident than incidents like Contador's 2011 Tour. Not favouritism at all.

Coming from someone who 24 hours ago thought that Froome and Porte's times should not have been neutralised

I believe this particular comment you're quoting from Carols refers to running along the course. The race jury president commented that they made an exception in his case, that he won't be penalised for running.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

There's a video that shows that in fact the moto incident had nothing to do with a spectator going in front of the moto. It simply stalled. Therefore, this was more similar to Yates' flamme rouge incident than incidents like Contador's 2011 Tour. Not favouritism at all.

Coming from someone who 24 hours ago thought that Froome and Porte's times should not have been neutralised

I believe this particular comment you're quoting from Carols refers to running along the course. The race jury president commented that they made an exception in his case, that he won't be penalised for running.

I was responding to the favouritism bit about getting the same time as Mollema. If nothing was done about the moto incident, then yes, Froome should have been slapped with a penalty for running without his bike as well.

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

You're not wrong.

He should have been DQed or at least penalized. The TdF Jury president says: The jury was mild, certainly in Froome's case. "Normally a rider is not allowed to continue without his bike, but in this case we took the circumstances into account" says Valcic"

Instead he gets the same time as Mollema, pure favoritism.

There's a video that shows that in fact the moto incident had nothing to do with a spectator going in front of the moto. It simply stalled. Therefore, this was more similar to Yates' flamme rouge incident than incidents like Contador's 2011 Tour. Not favouritism at all.

Coming from someone who 24 hours ago thought that Froome and Porte's times should not have been neutralised

I believe this particular comment you're quoting from Carols refers to running along the course. The race jury president commented that they made an exception in his case, that he won't be penalised for running.

I was responding to the favouritism bit about getting the same time as Mollema. If nothing was done about the moto incident, then yes, Froome should have been slapped with a penalty for running without his bike as well.

You mean if nothing was done about the time and Yates put on the yellow and so on, he should have been penalised? (Just trying to understand what I'm reading.)

If so, an incident must take place for someone to end up without his bike, resulting in the temptation to run. The thing is that besides the incident, he transgressed a rule, which the jury president verified, but also said that they chose to waive the penalty.

 

[Microchip]

Okay, just want to see if I'm understanding this properly...

1. An incident occurred.
2. The jury decided the incident was exceptional so applied Mollema's time to Froome.
3. Froome ran up the road after the incident (which is supposed to carry a penalty).
4. The jury decided that they would waive the penalty for running (a deduction of some amount of seconds).

Running should carry a penalty on its own, shouldn't it? Because an incident has to take place for the cyclist to decide to run. I think they are two separate issues.

 

[cineteq]

Re:

If the incident was caused by the crowd, then it was the right decision to neutralize the GC time gaps. It doesn't matter if Froome ran or not, or Quintana got a lift.

Okay, just want to see if I'm understanding this properly...

1. An incident occurred.
2. The jury decided the incident was exceptional so applied Mollema's time to Froome.
3. Froome ran up the road after the incident (which is supposed to carry a penalty).
4. The jury decided that they would waive the penalty for running (a deduction of some amount of seconds).

Running should carry a penalty on its own, shouldn't it? Because an incident has to take place for the cyclist to decide to run. I think they are two separate issues.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

If the incident was caused by the crowd, then it was the right decision to neutralize the GC time gaps. It doesn't matter if Froome ran or not, or Quintana got a lift.

Okay, just want to see if I'm understanding this properly...

1. An incident occurred.
2. The jury decided the incident was exceptional so applied Mollema's time to Froome.
3. Froome ran up the road after the incident (which is supposed to carry a penalty).
4. The jury decided that they would waive the penalty for running (a deduction of some amount of seconds).

Running should carry a penalty on its own, shouldn't it? Because an incident has to take place for the cyclist to decide to run. I think they are two separate issues.

And neither as far as I'm aware have been punished so commissaries agree with you. Technically it was neutralised so

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

Okay, I see. And the decision to give Mollema's time to Froome is based on the truth of what caused the incident, which in this case was the crowd. Okay, got it.

If the incident was caused by the crowd, then it was the right decision to neutralize the GC time gaps. It doesn't matter if Froome ran or not, or Quintana got a lift.