Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[wrinklyvet]

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.

The yellow jersey and its wearer should always receive respect, whoever the personalities are. Of course it was a correct decision.

The idiots who crowd the road are to blame, not the mororcyclists and especially not the riders.

 

[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.

The yellow jersey and its wearer should always receive respect, whoever the personalities are. Of course it was a correct decision.

The idiots who crowd the road are to blame, not the mororcyclists and especially not the riders.

Why should the yellow jersey wearer be treated any differently to anyone else in the race? If the peloton decides to respect it and eases up, fair enough. But if the other riders carry on racing, the organisers certainly shouldn't be stepping in just for the yellow jersey.

 

[Red Rick]

This is just being afraid of media pressure. Very similar things have happened plenty of times before, and nothing happened. It can happen to everyone, just like punctures, mechanicals, and other accidents nobody gives a crap about, because that's 'part of the game'.

The jury is showing they can just decide which rule they make up, and when, to get the result they want. Incredibly bad precedence to set imo.

As for the rest. It's terrible that it happened, but it's hilarious as well.

And Vino clearly would've ran past Mollema

 

[wrinklyvet]

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.

The yellow jersey and its wearer should always receive respect, whoever the personalities are. Of course it was a correct decision.

The idiots who crowd the road are to blame, not the mororcyclists and especially not the riders.

Why should the yellow jersey wearer be treated any differently to anyone else in the race? If the peloton decides to respect it and eases up, fair enough. But if the other riders carry on racing, the organisers certainly shouldn't be stepping in just for the yellow jersey.

It's an opinion. Easy to take either view. That's mine and I am not embarking on a long tussle over it as I have to go out. See you!

 

[thehook]

IMHO.....How does Froome GAIN Time? I know how they computed it. But If your going to give him a time it should have been Yates time. How do you know he does not flat or crack if the incident never happens? You cannot let him gain from it. That is the corrupt part. You are also discounting his jog up the mountain. So the rules don't apply to SKY? C'mon

 

[Red Rick]

Best thing to do would be to adjust the rules after the fact, but do nothing in this case, and then apply it consistently.

 

[LeSensei]

Re:

And Vino clearly would've ran past Mollema

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PremierAndrew]

The real question is if the full Ventoux had been ridden, would Froome have dropped Quintana for a second time today

 

[DFA123]

Re:

IMHO.....How does Froome GAIN Time? I know how they computed it. But If your going to give him a time it should have been Yates time. How do you know he does not flat or crack if the incident never happens? You cannot let him gain from it. That is the corrupt part. You are also discounting his jog up the mountain. So the rules don't apply to SKY? C'mon

This is the key thing. Riders crack all the time, we've seen Froome himself get dropped several times in the past only to work his way back up and actually end up gaining time on his rivals. He'd burnt more matches than the chasing group and there was absolutely no guarantee that he would have maintained the advantage he had to them.

 

[Ataraxus]

Re:

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.

Saying it is ridiculous to take times at 3/4 of the climb is similar to saying it's ridiculous of taking times at Chalet Reynard while the stage was planned till the top.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

Saying it is ridiculous to take times at 3/4 of the climb is similar to saying it's ridiculous of taking times at Chalet Reynard while the stage was planned till the top.

Dude, that's an awful analogy. I think we can all see the difference there.

 

[Gloin22]

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.

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

There are no rules in such situation. It's case by case basis, and why races have commissaries.

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

Well it's more a decision rather than a rule. It says in the rules that the commissars should use their "discretion." So it's not really creating a slippery slope ASSUMING the commissars actually start making sensible decisions for future incidents ... which I grant you is a big IF.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

Why? That attitude seems entirely capricious. Allowing fans to take out the rider with the Yellow Jersey is also a particularly slippery slope. If it is judged that a 'wrong' has been committed, change the rules in the future AND correct the perceived 'wrong' in the present. Saying rules are rules, so tough luck... is a copout IMO.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

There are no rules in such situation. It's case by case basis, and why races have commissaries.

There is a *** load of precedence for not doing jack ***. Now they overrule the precedence. Familirar cases have happened in the past, and the jury didn't give a damn. But now something similar happens, and all of a sudden it's super unfair.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

You don't change rules to make a situation right. You change them to prevent it in the future. Otherwise you're on a very, very slippery slope

Why? That attitude seems entirely capricious. Allowing fans to take out the rider with the Yellow Jersey is also a particularly slippery slope. If it is judged that a 'wrong' has been committed, change the rules in the future AND correct the perceived 'wrong' in the present. Saying rules are rules, so tough luck... is a copout IMO.

You make the time gaps stand, then you make a rule to make sure it doesn't happen again. They completely have themselves to blame for the chaos they created.

 

[Gloin22]

Re: Re:

[quote="

There is a **** load of precedence for not doing jack ****. Now they overrule the precedence. Familirar cases have happened in the past, and the jury didn't give a damn. But now something similar happens, and all of a sudden it's super unfair.

Correct. This is my problem with this as well and why there should be some concrete rules set by UCI after Tour immediately. Relaying on commissaries and their decisions is not good.

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

You make the time gaps stand, then you make a rule to make sure it doesn't happen again. They completely have themselves to blame for the chaos they created.

You do kind of admit that the rules need to change so I don't get why you are so against this decision.

 

[Galic Ho]

Re:

IMHO.....How does Froome GAIN Time? I know how they computed it. But If your going to give him a time it should have been Yates time. How do you know he does not flat or crack if the incident never happens? You cannot let him gain from it. That is the corrupt part. You are also discounting his jog up the mountain. So the rules don't apply to SKY? C'mon

This is false logic.

Taking the time of Mollema is the only rational option.

Why?

A mountain top finish is designed, albeit this time it was shortened, to classify the GC and force attacks.

What occurred? An attack. Thus the attacking rider will always without any interruption gain time.

There was a clear unprecedented interruption. Had that not occurred the only natural conclusion was that Chris Froome and Richie Porte would have both gained time on their rivals. Oh but it occurred! It was not a natural mechanical...riding over the bike of the leader of the Tour de France is not normal.

Switch the riders to Contador and Nibali. Would the patriotism of certain people change? Not at all among the racing officials AT the Tour. They don't get to show bias...despite what many here may think. This is the ASO, not the RCS, who should have prevented Quintana and Hesjedal in the 2014 Giro from gaining time. But they didn't.

Fans and official racing vehicles obstructed the fastest riders on the course. That is why this is the correct decision. They prevented them from gaining the actual time they had EARNED, through their own endeavors, which is the whole purpose of the GC classification and the inclusion of mountain top finishes.

I've seen many riders allowed to stroll across the line on flat stages after minutes of waiting from a final 3km crash...this is the same. They get the same time as the front.

Hvae a problem with it? Tell the people acting with disrespect and getting in everyone's faces to grow up, step back a few metres and actually allow moves to occur. What if everyone were together and the Aru/Bardet group were with the front 3 and the bike did not stop...how could an able and willing rider attack in that tunnel of rabid spectators? I won't call them fans anymore. Fans show respect.

If you don't like this, have you been in riders faces? Imagine going to the football and touching a player as he takes a free kick...bet they'd like that right? It's simply a pattern of bad behaviour that's been allowed for far too long...fine them, enforce like Guardia Civil does in the Vuelta and people will improve. How do I know? The idiocy the Vuelta once had, has decreased.

 

[Ataraxus]

Re: Re:

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.

Saying it is ridiculous to take times at 3/4 of the climb is similar to saying it's ridiculous of taking times at Chalet Reynard while the stage was planned till the top.

Dude, that's an awful analogy. I think we can all see the difference there.

Dude you cannot use subjective words without backing them up with facts and reasoning.
If a measurement of performance of todays stage is taken
Where would the most ideal and unbiased spot be?
Not measuring it at all is not the fairest decision to make IMO. Why did they put the finish at chalet reynard imstead of cancelling the stage at all.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

You make the time gaps stand, then you make a rule to make sure it doesn't happen again. They completely have themselves to blame for the chaos they created.

You do kind of admit that the rules need to change so I don't get why you are so against this decision.

They can basically change the rule whenever they like, to benefit the rider they like. That's because they can change the rules retroactively. They specifically did this because it was Froome (yellow jersey). What if it had been a nobody. They wouldn't have changed the rules. Rich man's justice, as Pistolero pointed out. In other words, arbitrary. In other words, they can do whatever the hell they want

 

[ToreBear]

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.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

Saying it is ridiculous to take times at 3/4 of the climb is similar to saying it's ridiculous of taking times at Chalet Reynard while the stage was planned till the top.

Dude, that's an awful analogy. I think we can all see the difference there.

Dude you cannot use subjective words without backing them up with facts and reasoning.
If a measurement of performance of todays stage is taken
Where would the most ideal and unbiased spot be?
Not measuring it at all is not the fairest decision to make IMO. Why did they put the finish at chalet reynard imstead of cancelling the stage at all.

Well, obviously the designated finish line at the start of the stage. The one that all of the riders were racing towards and timing their attacks with in mind.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

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

The right precedent, which should be reused whenever a peasant spectator causes riders to lose time.