• 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 9 - 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 .
Tonton said:
Again, and I'm surprised that my former post got no reaction pro or con, this was Chris Froome's opportunity of a lifetime. A great PR opportunity. A great story: how the robot became human. Two smart racing moves, bravery through bad luck, even the funny ride on the neutral bike makes him funny, lost time, he fights back, he wins. Many detractors give him props. A huge PR opportunity.

Instead, the politics got involved, and the debate takes place. With many having no trust in ASO, UCI, the mafia that runs cycling, and in the end Froome loses. If he wins the Tour, which is now likely, there will be a bunch of asterisks for many. Sky should have begged ASO to keep the results as they were on the finish line. And let Froome take the jersey back. A great story.
Ditto, I agree!
 
Tonton said:
Again, and I'm surprised that my former post got no reaction pro or con, this was Chris Froome's opportunity of a lifetime. A great PR opportunity. A great story: how the robot became human. Two smart racing moves, bravery through bad luck, even the funny ride on the neutral bike makes him funny, lost time, he fights back, he wins. Many detractors give him props. A huge PR opportunity.

Instead, the politics got involved, and the debate takes place. With many having no trust in ASO, UCI, the mafia that runs cycling, and in the end Froome loses. If he wins the Tour, which is now likely, there will be a bunch of asterisks for many. Sky should have begged ASO to keep the results as they were on the finish line. And let Froome take the jersey back. A great story.

But looking at it from Froome's perspective, it unnecessarily puts his yellow jersey at risk.

As it stands, he's got it wrapped up. If he wasn't given the 1.40, he'd only be one bad day away from losing it, whereas now he's safe even if that happens. I'm sure he's used to being disliked by now anyway ;)

And Froome gained a lot, and I mean A LOT of publicity today.

398618f0814dcc3660b479e76d995f22.png


For a start, today's stage was a bigger story in the UK than Theresa May's appointments in the cabinet, when the Tour de France is usually overshadowed by all cricket and golf stories, let alone other cycling races

And his odds of winning Sports Personality of the year in the UK were slashed hard after today's events
 
I would have liked to have seen froome lose the time and the jersey and then see him win it back again, what a story that would be!

Would make for a really exciting second half of the race and I have no doubt he could/would do it.

Aside from race organisers and the collective reputation of drunken buffoons across the world, Mavic is the biggest loser in all this, that toy bike they gave him won't have done their brand much value.
 
Aug 4, 2010
198
0
0
Visit site
JetSet said:
uspostal said:
Don't want to crash into a stopped motorbike don't follow so close, don't want to crash into another rider how's crashed again don't follow so close. At what point do we let the riders take responsability for themselves and let the chips or bikes fall where they may.
Just my .02 worth

Well, just in case you've never noticed, the crowds part when the leading motorbike passes through and if there's a gap between the motorbikes and the riders the crowd immediately flood back onto the road, that's why the leading riders keep as close as possible to the motorbike and that's what makes cycling so exciting.

Pete

I would agree with you Pete except the motorbike was stopped, so that statement as good as it sounds didn't happen. Cycling is exciting because the riders stay as close to the motorbike as possible ??? Thus proving my point, don't trail the motorbike so close, you won't run into the back and you may get around it if stopped,it seems like other riders got past the stopped motorbike ??? The basic point was for the riders to take responsability of what happens to them while riding. I'm not saying that where's not blame to the people who kind of organized it, piss poor at best. But the riders in the breakaway who were ahead of got thru.
 
PremierAndrew said:
But looking at it from Froome's perspective, it unnecessarily puts his yellow jersey at risk.

As it stands, he's got it wrapped up. If he wasn't given the 1.40, he'd only be one bad day away from losing it, whereas now he's safe even if that happens. I'm sure he's used to being disliked by now anyway ;)
In the UK. Nowhere else, as Sky looks like the clone of USPS. That was a (small) risk worth taking. For a big reward. He'll win this thing anyway.
 
Tonton said:
Again, and I'm surprised that my former post got no reaction pro or con, this was Chris Froome's opportunity of a lifetime. A great PR opportunity. A great story: how the robot became human. Two smart racing moves, bravery through bad luck, even the funny ride on the neutral bike makes him funny, lost time, he fights back, he wins. Many detractors give him props. A huge PR opportunity.

Instead, the politics got involved, and the debate takes place. With many having no trust in ASO, UCI, the mafia that runs cycling, and in the end Froome loses. If he wins the Tour, which is now likely, there will be a bunch of asterisks for many. Sky should have begged ASO to keep the results as they were on the finish line. And let Froome take the jersey back. A great story.

exactly, when he rolls in to paris with a 5-10 minute lead on everyone he'll look back on this and wonder if they were too hasty in not just accepting the result.
 
Re: Re:

mufana said:
Carols said:
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.

Indeed... for now our sport is reduced to a jury sport. Which is a sad thing.

Jury's have to make difficult decisions at times, like DQ'ing Renshaw or Nibali, relegating riders in sprints and not all of these decisions are clear cut. You can't really run a sport, any sport without a jury or equivalent. If we just rigidly stuck to the rules then the 2006 Tour would have had less than 10 finishers as the entire peloton missed the time cut on one stage. I don't support any particular rider, at my age,67, you grow out of these things,but I suspect that if for example this had happened to the Quintana group and Porte, Froome and Mollema had gained 3 minutes then all the Fanboys would be crying foul. It's a sensible decision and within the rules as I understand them. What we should be discussing is how we can prevent this sort of chaos from happening again as the jury have made their decision and all the whinging on here is not going to change it.

Pete
 
Tonton said:
PremierAndrew said:
But looking at it from Froome's perspective, it unnecessarily puts his yellow jersey at risk.

As it stands, he's got it wrapped up. If he wasn't given the 1.40, he'd only be one bad day away from losing it, whereas now he's safe even if that happens. I'm sure he's used to being disliked by now anyway ;)
In the UK. Nowhere else, as Sky looks like the clone of USPS. That was a (small) risk worth taking. For a big reward. He'll win this thing anyway.

1:40 in the Tour? A small risk?

Quintana will most certainly be back in week 3, I can assure you of that
 
Jul 13, 2016
38
0
0
Visit site
Lets say they hadn't done the right thing and neutralised todays stage at the 1km marker, whats to stop a spectator pushing Quintana off his bike knowing that it would almost certainly cost him a tdf win or podium...it would set a dangerous precedent!!! Just because cycling refused to make the right calls in the past does not mean they should not make the correct calls in the future. Look at tennis with hawkeye or soccer with goal line technology, sports today adapt and as opposed to following the silly rulings from yester year, cycling needs to change or face getting left behind like it did in the late noughties...I would of stopped watching this years tdf if they had penalised Froome and Porte for something that they had no control over, that and Froome/Porte could of even of considered leaving the race.

The general public would look on in disbelief that such an incident could a) happen and b)that the riders would not get relief...it's hard to attract new followers to a sport with such prehistoric rules. Today's ruling was the only possible outcome, otherwise the race had lost all credibility.

If this incident had happened to Contador, this topic of conversation would not get anything like the same attention.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
ToreBear said:
I see a lot of posts complaining about Froome getting special treatment pointing to similar incidents.

Could you perhaps post/link to a youtube clip of the similar situation?

I certainly cant remember anything similar happening. So if someone could give a refresher it would be nice.

Whether Merckx lost the Tour because of it, that's debatable. But when Merckx got punched, he didn't get any special consideration. There are so many examples of similar incidents being dealt with differently by the organisers.

Today's decision sets the right precedent if followed

Actually, ToreBear's question is a really good one.

And the Eddy Merckx comparison is NOT the same.

Merckx was losing time already to Thevenet (and Zoetemelk) on the day. Despite the "punch", he still managed to sprint the final 500m to the top of the Puy de Dome. While I am sure he lost a few seconds in that moment, it would have been hard to quantify. He lost time (and the Tour?) subsequently because he was wrongly prescribed blood thinner (kind of reverse-EPO if you like) for relief and HE claims that led to his collapse on the stage to Pra-Loup a few days later.

This is completely different from what happened to Froome and Porte today.

Also, that event happened 41 years ago. Should we also have asked Porte to change his own tire when he flatted on the second stage (like they used to do in the early Tours).

My biggest concern with not rectifying the situation somewhat (nothing will be perfect, of course) is that you might give ideas to crazy fans (or gamblers) that they could control who won by recreating a similar event.
 
Re: Re:

Sartorius said:
Electress said:
CTQ said:
or the authorities asked them to come to hear their decision

Even if so - and we don't know - they had no business asking Froome and Brailsford to hear their decision and not every other DS and rider involved in the incident - i.e. every team needs to be represented. They have to treat, and be seen to treat, every rider and team the same without exception.


I would like to know source of that rumour. I hope it's not true...

Btw First information about neutralization was from BMC, wasn't it?

See above post - allegedly reported on ITV. The post includes links to video in which Gary Imlach states that there were discussions 'behind closed doors' with BF and the MJ.
I don't know about BMC. I heard from CN race thread when Froome tweeted.
 
Re:

Carols said:
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?

CnVhKwLWYAI7kqv.jpg



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

claude cat said:
Carols said:
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?

CnVhKwLWYAI7kqv.jpg



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


Yes, let's make sure that it's ok, ok, because anything Froome does is legal, Ok!
 
Tonton said:
Again, and I'm surprised that my former post got no reaction pro or con, this was Chris Froome's opportunity of a lifetime. A great PR opportunity. A great story: how the robot became human. Two smart racing moves, bravery through bad luck, even the funny ride on the neutral bike makes him funny, lost time, he fights back, he wins. Many detractors give him props. A huge PR opportunity.

Instead, the politics got involved, and the debate takes place. With many having no trust in ASO, UCI, the mafia that runs cycling, and in the end Froome loses. If he wins the Tour, which is now likely, there will be a bunch of asterisks for many. Sky should have begged ASO to keep the results as they were on the finish line. And let Froome take the jersey back. A great story.

Fully agree. Froome will win by 7 minutes, looking back it will look greedy and self centred.
 
May 4, 2010
235
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Good decision. Imagine poor Yates with yellow jersey tomorrow. That's certainly not the way how he would like to remember his first day in yellow.
His biggest win came in the same fashion, so it's not an upset.

Probably should let Yates decide that himself. As is made obvious in every tour cyclists will give anything for a day or two in yellow. Even though he is quoted as saying Froome is the rightful wearer he may have reluctantly worn it if the results over the line were allowed to stand.
 
Re: Re:

claude cat said:
Carols said:
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?

CnVhKwLWYAI7kqv.jpg



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
 
Tonton said:
Again, and I'm surprised that my former post got no reaction pro or con, this was Chris Froome's opportunity of a lifetime. A great PR opportunity. A great story: how the robot became human. Two smart racing moves, bravery through bad luck, even the funny ride on the neutral bike makes him funny, lost time, he fights back, he wins. Many detractors give him props. A huge PR opportunity.

Instead, the politics got involved, and the debate takes place. With many having no trust in ASO, UCI, the mafia that runs cycling, and in the end Froome loses. If he wins the Tour, which is now likely, there will be a bunch of asterisks for many. Sky should have begged ASO to keep the results as they were on the finish line. And let Froome take the jersey back. A great story.

For what it's worth I agree with you. This could have been one of those legendary cycling stories that are still talked about decades later - the unpopular champion braving adversity and misfortune and still coming out on top.

But no, ASO inventing rules to castrate the action killed that.
 
Jul 14, 2015
135
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
thehog said:
Electress said:
thehog said:
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

Seriously? If that is true it's appalling. One can only hope all the teams involved were with them as well...why do I suspect that wasn't the case? This does not help the UCI or Sky deal with accusations of undue influence.

It's clear that a review of the rules and the way the jury works needs to be undertaken by some independent organisation. Given the sweeping power of the commissaires to change the result, there has, at the very least, to be due process.

It is concerning from two points of view; 1. There is cosy relationship between Sky (Froome) and the race judges (UCI, dope testing, bike tests etc.), 2. No other team was represented, including Mollema.

To be honest, it doesn't surprise me Brailsford was in there applying pressure. I suppose the UCI will write him another thank-you letter for being the most cooperative team? :rolleyes:

Disappointing.

Have I missed something? Sources?