Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[RedheadDane]

^
1: Well, exactly. The farce began when they changed the punishment from the completely sensible original one.

 

[Keram]

Because of jury disqualified him it is paradoxically better for him than he would stay in race. Now he is somehow perceived as a victim of this story. He got sum plus points that he apologised Mark more than once and his video from car was genius imho from marketing point. He got more than 30k new fans at FB and more than 20k at twitter. Thats huge considering it is from 4th july till now.

 

[lartiste]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

I do not think, that attemps of Peter's fans are that ridiculous. When I saw the crash for the first time live, it was easy to say "elbowing", later I had my doubt. At the moment, guys from Slovakia discovered, that Mark probably crashed on manhole cover ... .

link: https://www.o2tvsport.cz/ostatni-sporty/nove-dukazy-cavendish-malem-stahl-nevinneho-sagana-k-zemi/

Mark lost balance on manhole cover and then hit Peter:

 

[animir]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

If someone says, that the current situation in cycling e.g. rules and how they are applied, is one of the reasons for this outcome, do you think its absurd?

Clearly the written rule about not changing the line is broken in many sprints, as riders go for gaps or follow wheels. Even as it is against the written rule, one could say according to the reality in the sprints, that there is an "unwritten rule", that if a rider is in front of another rider and follows wheels, the rider behind has just to follow that change of direction or to brake if there is no space. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT THE WRITTEN RULE IS USUALLY APPLIED, WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS, E.G. WHEN THE RIDER BEHIND DOESNT BRAKE. THIS DESICION IS MISSING THE DIRECT CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE FIRST RIDER AND HIS PENALTY!!! THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE RULE IN THAT WAY, THAT IT HAS TO KEEPED IN EVERY SPRINT AND THE PENALTY WILL BY APPLIED EVERY TIME, WHEN THE RULE IS BROKEN, REGARDLESS ANY ACCIDENT.

Riders would have much more clarity, where is the limit, what is OK and what not anymore. It would be great, if riders with rich sprinting experience would meet and at least try to suggest some definition of this rule, which would much better reflect the reality in sprints.

 

[DFA123]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

If someone says, that the current situation in cycling e.g. rules and how they are applied, is one of the reasons for this outcome, do you think its absurd?

Clearly the written rule about not changing the line is broken in many sprints, as riders go for gaps or follow wheels. Even as it is against the written rule, one could say according to the reality in the sprints, that there is an "unwritten rule", that if a rider is in front of another rider and follows wheels, the rider behind has just to follow that change of direction or to brake if there is no space. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT THE WRITTEN RULE IS USUALLY APPLIED, WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS, E.G. WHEN THE RIDER BEHIND DOESNT BRAKE. THIS DESICION IS MISSING THE DIRECT CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE FIRST RIDER AND HIS PENALTY!!! THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE RULE IN THAT WAY, THAT IT HAS TO KEEPED IN EVERY SPRINT AND THE PENALTY WILL BY APPLIED EVERY TIME, WHEN THE RULE IS BROKEN, REGARDLESS ANY ACCIDENT.

Riders would have much more clarity, where is the limit, what is OK and what not anymore. It would be great, if riders with rich sprinting experience would meet and at least try to suggest some definition of this rule, which would much better reflect the reality in sprints.

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The 'written rule' doesn't forbid changing lanes. It forbids changing lane where it endangers other riders.

10.1.Deviating from selected lane, endangering other riders

It's obvious why the outcome of the deviation is so important to the interpretation of the rule. Because if no-one is injured or there is no contact, then it's very hard to say beyond doubt that the action was dangerous. If someone ends up with a broken shoulder, however, then it's clear that the deviating from lane was dangerous and so the punishment is much more straight forward.

The inconsistencies in applying the rule are becaue of the doubt involved in most cases; in Sagan's case there was no doubt: he deviated from his lane which resulted in a crash. It's a clear open and shut case where the rules needed to be applied. The only decision they had to make was whether this was a 'particularly serious' case which warrants elimination by the UCI rules. I presume the severity of Cavendish's injuries made them believe that it was.

 

[Tonton]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

If someone says, that the current situation in cycling e.g. rules and how they are applied, is one of the reasons for this outcome, do you think its absurd?

Clearly the written rule about not changing the line is broken in many sprints, as riders go for gaps or follow wheels. Even as it is against the written rule, one could say according to the reality in the sprints, that there is an "unwritten rule", that if a rider is in front of another rider and follows wheels, the rider behind has just to follow that change of direction or to brake if there is no space. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT THE WRITTEN RULE IS USUALLY APPLIED, WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS, E.G. WHEN THE RIDER BEHIND DOESNT BRAKE. THIS DESICION IS MISSING THE DIRECT CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE FIRST RIDER AND HIS PENALTY!!! THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE TO RULE IN THAT WAY, THAT IT HAS TO KEEPED IN EVERY SPRINT AND THE PENALTY WILL BY APPLIED EVERY TIME, WHEN THE RULE IS BROKEN, REGARDLESS ANY ACCIDENT.

Riders would have much more clarity, where is the limit, what is OK and what not anymore. It would be great, if riders with rich sprinting experience would meet and at least try to suggest some definition of this rule, which would much better reflect the reality in sprints.

I agree 100% with LS, and animir, I agree with you too: the riders should write the rule. And to me it summarizes how decisions are made at the highest level. Some well-intentioned but clueless people write rules that can't be enforced or enforced consistently (each sprint is different), and too often they resort to "quick fixes" or feel compelled to make a statement, which is an admission of a problem that hasn't been addressed or resolved. In this case rider safety.

At this level, on this stage, sprinters will take risks. Particularly when facing one much faster guy, Kittel. If you look at sprinting as a combination of speed, b@lls, and luck, Kittel has the speed on his side. For the other contenders, you have to take chances and hope for the best. Riders like Sagan, Cavendish, and Demare are willing to risk a lot to make their luck.

Rider safety: UCI and the likes of UCI are failing. No changes or meaningful plans are taking place or being proposed. When the crash took place, I feel that UCI found themselves in a "oh my God, oh my God" situation. They had the entire night to review tapes and make a decision. To me, Sagan was ahead of Cavendish, and that in itself would save him from disqualification.

The reactions from some fans, and I will echo Libertine, have been hysterical, between the threats to Cavendish on social media, the conspiracy theories, the misdirected hatred towards Demare (booo, the French ) and pointing fingers in every direction. That's how these fans are losing credibility in my view. They are Peter Sagan fans, not cycling fans.

Sagan has a share of responsibility in the crash. How big a share? We can debate that. I think that we can all agree that it wasn't 100%-0% .

The issue here, in my view, is that the failing government body of pro-cycling freaked out. Again, they had the whole night, until the start of the following stage, to make an educated decision. And failed to do so. Peter Sagan should never have been DQed.

 

[Angliru]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

I do not think, that attemps of Peter's fans are that ridiculous. When I saw the crash for the first time live, it was easy to say "elbowing", later I had my doubt. At the moment, guys from Slovakia discovered, that Mark probably crashed on manhole cover ... .

link: https://www.o2tvsport.cz/ostatni-sporty/nove-dukazy-cavendish-malem-stahl-nevinneho-sagana-k-zemi/

Mark lost balance on manhole cover and then hit Peter:

Or, if you were to also circle the fan who has his arms draped over the barriers, you have another cause for Cavendish to move into Sagan, initiating contact. I believe more so than the manhole cover, AND additionally there was a long foam triangular shaped banner on the barrier just past this image that he would have had to avoid also. The elbow contact to Cavendish never occurred.

 

[Netserk]

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The 'written rule' doesn't forbid changing lanes. It forbids changing lane where it endangers other riders.

10.1.Deviating from selected lane, endangering other riders

So why are there two categories of punishment, one for irregular sprinting and another for deviating your line and endangering others?

Clearly, you don't have to endanger other riders to be relegated.

As an example, Bouhanni was relegated in Hamburg for irregular sprinting. He was *not* punished for endangering other riders with his line deviation. If he was, he would have been DQ'ed and not relegated down to 27th.

 

[DFA123]

Apparently, the latest theory from Slovak TV is that there was a bit of fruit on the road that Cavendish carelessly slipped on. Absolutely nothing to do with Sagan, nope, nothing at all. He's just lucky that Cavendish didn't take him down.

 

[DFA123]

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The 'written rule' doesn't forbid changing lanes. It forbids changing lane where it endangers other riders.

10.1.Deviating from selected lane, endangering other riders

So why are there two categories of punishment, one for irregular sprinting and another for deviating your line and endangering others?

Clearly, you don't have to endanger other riders to be relegated.

Who said you did? I think you may have missed the point. All I'm saying is that changing lanes in itself is not prohibited by the laws. It's only prohibited if it is a danger to others - which is kind of difficult to prove without some kind of incident.

Of course there are still other ways you can get DQd in a sprint.

 

[ihosama]

Who said you did? I think you may have missed the point. All I'm saying is that changing lanes in itself is not prohibited by the laws. It's only prohibited if it is a danger to others - which is kind of difficult to prove without some kind of incident.

Of course there are still other ways you can get DQd in a sprint.

OK, which raises the point why Démare was not relegated too. Not to mention that I do not believe Sagan was aware of Cav until too late. If he was, he would have another 10th place as we saw on Stage 2. He rides quite safely in general since he got engaged and to risk Cav driving into him would not be a preferable outcome by any measure.

On the "Démare hate". This is a false argument. All criticism I saw was that while Sagan is screamed at for a very slight/gradual line deviation as a punishable offense, then Démare's was much worse. Firstly his movement was consciously dangerous for Bouhani and seondly it was also much more abrupt/unexpected. What you see is not Démare hate. It is "selective rule application hate". A very different thing.

 

[animir]

Here is some video mentioning that drain hole too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL8njAL6n5Y
It could be a combination of more unfortunate factors, as spectators were just behind that drain hole and Cav needed to move at that moment...

 

[DFA123]

Who said you did? I think you may have missed the point. All I'm saying is that changing lanes in itself is not prohibited by the laws. It's only prohibited if it is a danger to others - which is kind of difficult to prove without some kind of incident.

Of course there are still other ways you can get DQd in a sprint.

OK, which raises the point why Démare was not relegated too. Not to mention that I do not believe Sagan was aware of Cav until too late. If he was, he would have another 10th place as we saw on Stage 2. He rides quite safely in general since he got engaged and to risk Cav driving into him would not be a preferable outcome by any measure.

On the "Démare hate". This is a false argument. All criticism I saw was that while Sagan is screamed at for a very slight/gradual line deviation as a punishable offense, then Démare's was much worse. Firstly his movement was consciously dangerous for Bouhani and seondly it was also much more abrupt/unexpected. What you see is not Démare hate. It is "selective rule application hate". A very different thing.

I think this has all been done to death by now. Ultimately it's a judgement call however you look at it I guess; for the commisaires it's certainly the easier decision to punish the incident where the crash rather than where there was no bad outcome. Whether or not that was the right call; I don't think there is a definite answer either way. It's just a subjective decision, like calls by referees often are in sports.

 

[animir]

Who said you did? I think you may have missed the point. All I'm saying is that changing lanes in itself is not prohibited by the laws. It's only prohibited if it is a danger to others - which is kind of difficult to prove without some kind of incident.

Of course there are still other ways you can get DQd in a sprint.

OK, which raises the point why Démare was not relegated too. Not to mention that I do not believe Sagan was aware of Cav until too late. If he was, he would have another 10th place as we saw on Stage 2. He rides quite safely in general since he got engaged and to risk Cav driving into him would not be a preferable outcome by any measure.

On the "Démare hate". This is a false argument. All criticism I saw was that while Sagan is screamed at for a very slight/gradual line deviation as a punishable offense, then Démare's was much worse. Firstly his movement was consciously dangerous for Bouhani and seondly it was also much more abrupt/unexpected. What you see is not Démare hate. It is "selective rule application hate". A very different thing.

I think this has all been done to death by now. Ultimately it's a judgement call however you look at it I guess; for the commisaires it's certainly the easier decision to punish the incident where the crash rather than where there was no bad outcome. Whether or not that was the right call; I don't think there is a definite answer either way. It's just a subjective decision, like calls by referees often are in sports.

Exactly, it is easier, when there is an accident. But when you loose causality, you loose also justice.

If something is dangerous, than it is dangerous regardless an accident and vice versa.

 

[Gorecki]

Re:

Apparently, the latest theory from Slovak TV is that there was a bit of fruit on the road that Cavendish carelessly slipped on. Absolutely nothing to do with Sagan, nope, nothing at all. He's just lucky that Cavendish didn't take him down.

Omg, that is a joke! JOKE! (facepalm)
And it is not "from Slovak TV".

 

[Gorecki]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

If someone says, that the current situation in cycling e.g. rules and how they are applied, is one of the reasons for this outcome, do you think its absurd?

Clearly the written rule about not changing the line is broken in many sprints, as riders go for gaps or follow wheels. Even as it is against the written rule, one could say according to the reality in the sprints, that there is an "unwritten rule", that if a rider is in front of another rider and follows wheels, the rider behind has just to follow that change of direction or to brake if there is no space. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT THE WRITTEN RULE IS USUALLY APPLIED, WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS, E.G. WHEN THE RIDER BEHIND DOESNT BRAKE. THIS DESICION IS MISSING THE DIRECT CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE FIRST RIDER AND HIS PENALTY!!! THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE RULE IN THAT WAY, THAT IT HAS TO KEEPED IN EVERY SPRINT AND THE PENALTY WILL BY APPLIED EVERY TIME, WHEN THE RULE IS BROKEN, REGARDLESS ANY ACCIDENT.

Riders would have much more clarity, where is the limit, what is OK and what not anymore. It would be great, if riders with rich sprinting experience would meet and at least try to suggest some definition of this rule, which would much better reflect the reality in sprints.

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The 'written rule' doesn't forbid changing lanes. It forbids changing lane where it endangers other riders.

10.1.Deviating from selected lane, endangering other riders

It's obvious why the outcome of the deviation is so important to the interpretation of the rule. Because if no-one is injured or there is no contact, then it's very hard to say beyond doubt that the action was dangerous. If someone ends up with a broken shoulder, however, then it's clear that the deviating from lane was dangerous and so the punishment is much more straight forward.

The inconsistencies in applying the rule are becaue of the doubt involved in most cases; in Sagan's case there was no doubt: he deviated from his lane which resulted in a crash. It's a clear open and shut case where the rules needed to be applied. The only decision they had to make was whether this was a 'particularly serious' case which warrants elimination by the UCI rules. I presume the severity of Cavendish's injuries made them believe that it was.

That is nonsense, since not even Dimension Data knew at that time the severity of Cavs injuries.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Probably I am mistaken but even Libertine probably finally admitted that he is not such a monster as he thought he was. You do not have to like him but you can respect him.

His personality didn't come into it on this occasion. I was saying there's a strong case against his DQ, but also pointing out that the attempts by fans to absolve him of responsibility are ridiculous; that it's fine to say the penalty was too harsh, but not to pretend he was blameless; and some of the things about how ASO or UCI owe Bora an apology, or even sillier, money (he could just as easily have crashed out the next day, how do you quantify it?), and arguments presented as if, seeing as Sagan has been punished, the obvious conclusion is that cycling is to blame, authorities, conspiracies, Cavendish or in fact anybody but Sagan, are absurd and many such posts have been no less childish than my Richmond outburst against him.

I do not think, that attemps of Peter's fans are that ridiculous. When I saw the crash for the first time live, it was easy to say "elbowing", later I had my doubt. At the moment, guys from Slovakia discovered, that Mark probably crashed on manhole cover ... .

I don't think my opinions of Sagan are ridiculous either, but I sure as hell get a lot of ridicule every time I end up in a discussion of him. I still stand by the opinions I expressed on the day of the Richmond Worlds, it's only that first post ("f**k him, f**k cycling and f**k anyone who supports him" or words to that effect) that were regrettable, because everything after that came from my responding to people's demands that I justify my position and the tone of my initial comment made the discussion more aggressive on both sides than it perhaps needed to be.

And frankly, again: Peter's fans feeling that a DQ is a harsh outcome I have no problem with; Peter's fans trying to blame Cavendish for the crash, pressure ASO or UCI to reverse decision etc. - it's three days ago now, he's not coming back in the race. Sure, be unhappy with the rule, or the application of it, but don't act like cycling is at fault, Sagan is. Using the last split-second before impact to suggest Sagan did nothing wrong and didn't wildly change his line is disingenuous and bears all the hallmarks of those blaming Haussler for the infamous Tour de Suisse crash.

If it was somebody with less name value, or a more negative reputation, who pulled the move Sagan did in stage 4, there wouldn't be any clamour to revisit the rules or anything. If it was somebody with less star power but enough pace to be among those contesting the wheel, like a Jonas Vangenechten or Rüdiger Selig, and took out and injured a major star sprinter before being DQed, they'd have been indelibly tainted in people's opinion as a dangerous rider, like happened to Romain Feillu and Roberto Ferrari. The DQ, well, sometimes overzealousness with the rules happens. When Julien Simon was relegated for breathing somewhere in the approximate vicinity of Cândido Barbosa, for example. Sagan may have been the victim of an overzealous jury on this occasion. But he's also a guy who has thrown his weight around in the past, which may have coloured their decision too.

And there were some who were claiming they couldn't throw Sagan out for the spectacle he provides and all of that, you can't let anybody become bigger than the race so that they can't be punished for their actions, that's a very dangerous road to go down. The Vuelta had to throw one of its biggest stars out on stage 1 a couple of years ago, remember that? I'm sure that must have been pretty bad for business too.

 

[Walkman]

Re:

Apparently, the latest theory from Slovak TV is that there was a bit of fruit on the road that Cavendish carelessly slipped on. Absolutely nothing to do with Sagan, nope, nothing at all. He's just lucky that Cavendish didn't take him down.

That might explain all the sour grapes currently being consumed by Sagan fans.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Apparently, the latest theory from Slovak TV is that there was a bit of fruit on the road that Cavendish carelessly slipped on. Absolutely nothing to do with Sagan, nope, nothing at all. He's just lucky that Cavendish didn't take him down.

That might explain all the sour grapes currently being consumed by Sagan fans.

Indeed. Guess it's tough to accept that your hero is actually a bit of a bad apple.

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

Indeed. Guess it's tough to accept that your hero is actually a bit of a bad apple.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. I would guess there is a grudge lurking somewhere.

Building a strawman collage and then having the arrogance to use it as an argument why the other party is wrong is a pretty low approach.

That Cav's back wheel slipped on a manhole is a fact. It is not right or wrong, or funny. Just a basic fact that was missed when people focused on the upper body contact initially.
How big impact it had on his demise? Probably not much, he would crash anyway. Just in a different way. But it does explain the violent change of movement of his body. The one which seemed to have been caused by Sagan's elbow from the overhead view and which precipitated the penalization decision. So it is important in that context.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Indeed. Guess it's tough to accept that your hero is actually a bit of a bad apple.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. I would guess there is a grudge lurking somewhere.

Building a strawman collage and then having the arrogance to use it as an argument why the other party is wrong is a pretty low approach.

That Cav's back wheel slipped on a manhole is a fact. It is not right or wrong, or funny. Just a basic fact that was missed when people focused on the upper body contact initially.
How big impact it had on his demise? Probably not much, he would crash anyway. Just in a different way. But it does explain the violent change of movement of his body. The one which seemed to be caused by Sagan's elbow from the overhead view and which precipitated the penalization decision. So it is important in that context.

Dude, chill! It was just a fruit-based pun.

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

Dude, chill! It was just a fruit-based pun.

Taken.
Unfortunately, there are trolls even in Czech/Slovak media with messaging of the sort "Sagan is such a shitty rider anyway, he cannot make even a top 20 in tour anyway" that one gets to expect your posts could be serious ...

Body language is really missed in written discussions at times.

 

[ihosama]

https://youtu.be/wDT26ZYjmDw?t=52
Greipel reaction for Slovak TV. Narration is in Slovak but Greipel's response can be heard in German.

He sure has some balls. He almost completely backs Sagan/Bora position saying Cav had no place to be there. And even when he was, that he should have braked.

Hats off to Gorrilla. Did not expect such a clear message, even after his apology tweet.

 

[yosskk]

Re: Re:

Apparently, the latest theory from Slovak TV is that there was a bit of fruit on the road that Cavendish carelessly slipped on. Absolutely nothing to do with Sagan, nope, nothing at all. He's just lucky that Cavendish didn't take him down.

That might explain all the sour grapes currently being consumed by Sagan fans.

Indeed. Guess it's tough to accept that your hero is actually a bit of a bad apple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL8njAL6n5Y
This youtube video explain what was on the road (nothing related to bananna) what makes Cav to panic/bump to Sagan, explanation in the beginning, zoomed incident can be seen from 1:43

 

[Angliru]

https://youtu.be/wDT26ZYjmDw?t=52
Greipel reaction for Slovak TV. Narration is in Slovak but Greipel's response can be heard in German.

He sure has some balls. He almost completely backs Sagan/Bora position saying Cav had no place to be there. And even when he was, that he should have braked.

Hats off to Gorrilla. Did not expect such a clear message, even after his apology tweet.

He obviously took the time to review the footage from multiple perspectives and was able to use this and his experience to comfortably and confidently draw a reasonable conclusion, unlike the race officials.