Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[Miburo]

Dangerous precedent but i agree with it, in this situation.

edit: i edited the poll so it should be working? if not, please help my stupidity dear mods

 

[PremierAndrew]

Remove an option from the poll, save it. Then put it back and save it again.

All we needed was for Froome to drop someone on their bike whilst running to make it even more farcical

 

[Miburo]

Re:

Remove an option from the poll, save it. Then put it back and save it again.

I figured it out myself, happy me

 

[hfer07]

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?

 

[Matteo.]

absolutely,if it had happened to someone less hated, would be right for everyone

 

[Gloin22]

Every race has different commissaries, Hitch being bitter about Contador crashing in 2011 doesn't mean one wrong has to mean another wrong. At the end I don't think is is a precedent at all, there are no rules and probably won't be about such weird situations, it has to be taken case by case.

Fans hating Froome will be bitter cause in past commissionaires did nothing, Froome fans will be delighted and say this is justice. Hard to say, for me it was right thing to do as ASO *** it up there, the crash was caused by overcrowding and people coming down from cancelled part of Ventoux, this mean ASO should have taken barriers or police or did something before. They did not.

 

[El Pistolero]

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

 

[DFA123]

I don't have a massive problem with him staying in yellow. But they should have just cancelled the whole GC results from the stage, just pretended it never existed from a GC point of view. Taking times from splits three quarters of the way up a mountain is ridiculous.

Although given it looks like the reason he lost so much time was because his superlight, marginal gains bike failed big time, perhaps he should just have to suck it up.

 

[Kwibus]

I hope that from this day on they will continue to do it like this.

Most of all I want more barriers.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Anyone saying yes is clearly a fanboy. Past has shown exceptions weren't made for similar circumstances, why the change now? Disgusting decision.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Exactly this. It's bullsh1t for Froome and Porte if it doesn't get neutralised, but why are they getting special treatment?

If this goes on to be a precedent and other, smaller riders, are also given this kind of (logical) treatment, then fine. But if this turns out to be a one off, that's even more bs than Froome and Porte losing a minute and more to a moto crash

 

[LeSensei]

In my opinion, absolutely. It seems the motorbike crashed into some idiotic hooligan, it was an accident, a race incident, in which riders had no involvement whatsoever, but have been clearly affected by it. Froome Porte and Mollema had roughly 1 minute over Quintana's group and they were nearing the last kilometre when the disaster happened. This is a historic disgrace for the Tour de France, and anything not being Froome in yellow tomorrow would be an even bigger disgrace.

Quintana was going to lose 1 minute and a half, ended up losing half a minute only. I'm sure he has nothing to complain about today's decision. I mean his Giro victory was already stained by his cheating, 2 is way too many. I just hope the crash was nothing serious - this could be a turning point in the Tour.

 

[Alexandre B.]

The atmosphere will be absolutely horrible in the last week. This decision is a disaster.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

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.

 

[deValtos]

Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Anyone saying yes is clearly a fanboy. Past has shown exceptions weren't made for similar circumstances, why the change now? Disgusting decision.

Just because the wrong decision has been made in the past you think they should keep making the wrong decision for eternity? For the sake of tradition?

What kind of logic is this?

It takes an event of this magnitude to make it obscenely clear how dumb many of these rulings have been in the past.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re:

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.

 

[SeriousSam]

I agree in principle with making adjustments for incidents like today when we can approximate what would have happened with sufficient confidence. There's little doubt Froome would have gained more than he did with the adjustment.

But such adjustments aren't usually done, and it hasn't been done in the past. The most principled way of responding would have been to apply the old rules of adjustment up to this point, to state what will instead be done going forward, and to be consistent from that point on. You change the rules in response an incident, but the change goes active only afterwards, not retroactively.

Making the change right now so as to benefit Froome looks very bad.

If it turns out be a once-off save Froome interference, it will look extremely bad

 

[Valv.Piti]

Yeah, I like the decision, its fair. Get it over with. Lets say the unthinkable thing happens and Quintana wins with x amount of time, we would look back at this, discussions back and forth about worthy winners.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Re: Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Anyone saying yes is clearly a fanboy. Past has shown exceptions weren't made for similar circumstances, why the change now? Disgusting decision.

Just because the wrong decision has been made in the past you think they should keep making the wrong decision for eternity? For the sake of tradition?

What kind of logic is this?

It takes an event of this magnitude to make it obscenely clear how dumb many of these rulings have been in the past.

That's the thing though. You can be certain that if a similar event happens on a smaller scale at the Vuelta there will be nothing done about it. The ruling isn't the problem, it's the blatant invention of rules and loopholes in order to favourite someone in particular is what is killing the sport.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Exactly this. It's ****** for Froome and Porte if it doesn't get neutralised, but why are they getting special treatment?

If this goes on to be a precedent and other, smaller riders, are also given this kind of (logical) treatment, then fine. But if this turns out to be a one off, that's even more bs than Froome and Porte losing a minute and more to a moto crash

Very much this ^^^

I doubt they would even have done anything if it was riders like Aru or Martin caught up in it, let alone anyone further down the GC. Now, every unforseen incident is going to result in neutralizations or what? Just double standards for the yellow jersey.

This stage has been a joke from ASO from before it started to after it finished.

 

[kenk09]

Quite obviously the right decision.

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Anyone saying yes is clearly a fanboy. Past has shown exceptions weren't made for similar circumstances, why the change now? Disgusting decision.

Just because the wrong decision has been made in the past you think they should keep making the wrong decision for eternity? For the sake of tradition?

What kind of logic is this?

It takes an event of this magnitude to make it obscenely clear how dumb many of these rulings have been in the past.

That's the thing though. You can be certain that if a similar event happens on a smaller scale at the Vuelta there will be nothing done about it. The ruling isn't the problem, it's the blatant invention of rules and loopholes in order to favourite someone in particular is what is killing the sport.

Well yes I somewhat agree with that. Many rules are applied arbitrarily unfortunately.

You and many others seem to be of the opinion though that everyone should always get screwed over since they can't handle the rules properly?

Why not work towards consistently making sensible decisions?

Is it a lack of faith in the UCI/ASO? (A legitimate concern)

Considering this event in isolation, do you seriously believe not giving back the time is the correct decision and we should strive to make all decisions like this?

 

[Queens Boulevard]

I'm still waiting but I don't reckon there will be any complaints about this decision from any teams or riders. Mollema seemed the only one interviewed who thought there should be no adjustment but it's possible that was a little self serving. Even Yates said the jersey belonged to Froome. In any case it seems everyone involved in the race is good with this decision.

As for we the fans I think the majority of us would admit in an honest moment this was the most just decision that could be made. If we disregard historical precedent and think of only the integrity of the race this seems to be the best way forward. As to the aforementioned historical precedent I think we should be able to look back and say what happened to Contador was unacceptable, and what happened to Merckx was unacceptable. As sport moves forward we should consistently look to make changes for the better. It is possible that this decision was made because Froome and Sky have undue influence with the organizers. Even if we accept that as true at the very least this decision sets a different sort of precedent going forward, and gives a reasonable argument for other riders who unjustly lose time in the future.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Anyone saying yes is clearly a fanboy. Past has shown exceptions weren't made for similar circumstances, why the change now? Disgusting decision.

Just because the wrong decision has been made in the past you think they should keep making the wrong decision for eternity? For the sake of tradition?

What kind of logic is this?

It takes an event of this magnitude to make it obscenely clear how dumb many of these rulings have been in the past.

Agree 100% with this post. Giving the fans the ability to alter the leader of the race is also a dangerous one. But I thought the ruling was the least bad of all the possible poor options.

 

[LeSensei]

Re: Re:

No, because they didn't do it with other, less famous, riders. Same rules should apply to everyone. This is rich man's justice basically.

Exactly this. It's ****** for Froome and Porte if it doesn't get neutralised, but why are they getting special treatment?

If this goes on to be a precedent and other, smaller riders, are also given this kind of (logical) treatment, then fine. But if this turns out to be a one off, that's even more bs than Froome and Porte losing a minute and more to a moto crash

That is just pure demagoguery. Small riders aren't fighting for the GC, what does it matter if they lose 10 or 30 mins. The comissaires decide based on what can and may as yet affect the race. When smaller riders fight over something like a stage win, and drama occurs, the case is studied just like any other in which the GC guys are involved. Obviously the GC guys will get a somewhat better treatment. But that's life. This is the Tour de France. No one wants drama. Get over it.