Froome stays in yellow, the right decision?

[Tonton]

I voted for Vino , thought the option was funny.

Now my $.02.

1. Double KOM points awarded means the 3km rule doesn't apply.
2. The final kilometer banner that fell on the riders earlier in the Tour probably set a prededent, making today's decision consistent with the previous one.
3. I'm not sure that either is the right decision, though. Another thread raise the issue, taking GVA's crash at the CSS as an example. The question is: when you start messing with the result on the finish line, where does it end?
4. I understand the decision that was made, but I fundamentally agree with Valverde:it's racing.

The controversy will "feed the angry", those who will interpret this decision as another proof that ASO is corrupt, that it's all mafia, that nothing has changed since 1999, except the name of some of the protagonists.

I would have liked ASO to stick to the times on the finish line, and Froome's misfortune today would have given him much needed sympathy among the non-anglo public, earned him fans for sure. The running up the Ventoux, man, that's glorious. The riding on the spare bike ala Joe Schmo on Sunday morning was a classic. Today could have been a HUGE PR success for Chris Froome.

He would have taken the jersey back, I'm certain, with the crowds cheering. Too bad the politics got involved...

 

[Sartorius]

Re:

This is crazy! Froome should have been disqualified or at least a have a time penalty for leaving behind his bike. You don't leave your bike behind. You can run up the mountain but always with your bike. Crazy. And why does he profit te most of the attack of Mollema?

And why does Quintana get's bonus seconds?

Froome acually didn't broke any rule by runing without his bike.

Also Froome, Porte and Mollema were damaged even after penalization. They would gain much more time (20-30 more sec is fair assumption). Acually only one who is winner here is Quintana who had a very bad day...

This neutralization is probably the best possible solution, but it is still not fair to everyone.

 

[Pantani_lives]

It smells like favoritism to me. If Mollema or someone else had crashed they wouldn't have changed the result. If they would take this to court I don't think the decision would stand. What rule allows the jury to make such a decision?

For the suspense it would have been better too if the real times had been kept.

 

[mufana]

Re: Re:

This is crazy! Froome should have been disqualified or at least a have a time penalty for leaving behind his bike. You don't leave your bike behind. You can run up the mountain but always with your bike. Crazy. And why does he profit te most of the attack of Mollema?

And why does Quintana get's bonus seconds?

Froome acually didn't broke any rule by runing without his bike.

Also Froome, Porte and Mollema were damaged even after penalization. They would gain much more time (20-30 more sec is fair assumption). Acually only one who is winner here is Quintana who had a very bad day...

This neutralization is probably the best possible solution, but it is still not fair to everyone.

He actually did broke a rule.

There multiple examples of riders who left their bike and we're given penalty's or forced to leave the race. Even in the Tour the France.

It's cycling and there's someone running. Crazy. It's an insult. A true cyclist never leaves his bike behind. It's the first thing they check when they crash.

 

[Sartorius]

Re: Re:

This is crazy! Froome should have been disqualified or at least a have a time penalty for leaving behind his bike. You don't leave your bike behind. You can run up the mountain but always with your bike. Crazy. And why does he profit te most of the attack of Mollema?

And why does Quintana get's bonus seconds?

Froome acually didn't broke any rule by runing without his bike.

Also Froome, Porte and Mollema were damaged even after penalization. They would gain much more time (20-30 more sec is fair assumption). Acually only one who is winner here is Quintana who had a very bad day...

This neutralization is probably the best possible solution, but it is still not fair to everyone.

He actually did broke a rule.

There multiple examples of riders who left their bike and we're given penalty's or forced to leave the race. Even in the Tour the France.

It's cycling and there's someone running. Crazy. It's an insult. A true cyclist never leaves his bike behind. It's the first thing they check when they crash.

Yeah...sure...let's play with words, twist some rules and make some exaples up so we can turn victim into a criminal...this neutralization is like a bandage to a gunshot wound and there are still people who are blaming the strongest guy today for staying in yellow...

 

[Carols]

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.

 

[mufana]

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.

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

 

[Pantani_lives]

I voted for Vino , thought the option was funny.

These Vino jokes are well past their use-by date. Any poll result including a Vino option should be neutralised.

 

[mufana]

I also don't understand why Henao (when Froome was on the neutral bike) just rode past him. Why didn't he gave him his bike!? weird moment.

 

[thehog]

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

 

[Carols]

ITV reported that Froome & Brailsford were with the race commissioners when they were deliberating the decision.

That's not appropriate.

Is that like Lance and his DS visiting labs?

 

[uspostal]

Well like a lot here I've given it some thought and I'm sure its been said here. I think the only changes that should have been made were to give Richie Porte the same time as Molleme and give Froome the time he got when he crossed the line, or DQ him for advancing without his bike. Froome starts running with his bike before it got too heavy I guess and he pitches to the side, so he knows the rule about having the bike with him.
My biggest complaint would be when do they stop making on the spot decisions and let the guys race ! 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

 

[Electress]

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.

 

[TMP402]

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.

Two rules suggest it's fine, one rule partially suggests it's not, but more in the context of getting in a car and skipping parts of the course. On balance, I say it is legal, but clarity needed.

 

[Billie]

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

This cannot be true?

 

[PremierAndrew]

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

That's just outrageous

 

[SeriousSam]

Well like a lot here I've given it some thought and I'm sure its been said here. I think the only changes that should have been made were to give Richie Porte the same time as Molleme and give Froome the time he got when he crossed the line

For the intrigue of the competition, that would indeed have been perfect. Instead, the GC competition is once again all but over.

 

[TMP402]

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

That's just outrageous

...if true.

 

[CTQ]

or the authorities asked them to come to hear their decision

 

[thehog]

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?

Disappointing.

 

[Electress]

Re:

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.

 

[King Boonen]

A ridiculous incident has been solved probably the only way it could have been. Mollema probably has a right to feel aggrieved, everyone else should feel lucky they either a) got a sensible decision for the crash or b) they didn't lose even more time to those three of the crash hadn't happened.

 

[Sartorius]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[JetSet]

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

 

[Tonton]

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.