Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[Walkman]

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.

Or maybe, race officials did look inte the rulebook and was the paragraf stating:

10.1.Deviating from selected lane, endangering other riders

And after seeing how Sagan clearly deviated from his line, which was the root cause of the crash, and acted accordingly.

 

[Netserk]

Accordingly would be to relegate, not disqualify. Can you explain to me how this case was particularly more serious than other incidents where riders have been sanctioned with the "endangering other riders" rule?

 

[Tonton]

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 ****** 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.

Trolls? Like closed-minded people who make stupid statements and twist fact to fit their narrative? In the Czech/Slovak media? Wow! Sorry to hear that...

 

[Walkman]

Re:

Accordingly would be to relegate, not disqualify. Can you explain to me how this case was particularly more serious than other incidents where riders have been sanctioned with the "endangering other riders" rule?

No I can't. But I am not going to criticize UCI for a decision that I think made sense just because they have been inconsistent in the past. I think riders safety should be a priority and while I understand where you come from, Sagan was probably punished harshly compared to others because of the elbow thing, regardless of what UCI might or might not have said.

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

No I can't. But I am not going to criticize UCI for a decision that I think made sense just because they have been inconsistent in the past. I think riders safety should be a priority and while I understand where you come from, Sagan was probably punished harshly compared to others because of the elbow thing, regardless of what UCI might or might not have said.

This is not about the past. The jury ignored other rules trangression(s) in that same sprint. It apparently allowed political pressure to affect a decision and even refused the accused party the right of being heard.

But critically, a rule which is not applied consistently is completely worthless.
No one respects nor follows a selectively applied rule.

What UCI did makes the rule book an official joke. That has lots of effects. Improving rider safety is not among them.

 

[ihosama]

To add.
I believe we all know or at least suspect why the rules are (not) applied they way they are.

UCI as well as race organizers want their cake and eat it too. They *want* chaotic sprints because they look good on TV and bring in money. They also want to *be seen* as doing something for rider safety.

If they can eliminate a politically weak team/rider in the process, that is just a bonus.

The last thing UCI seems to care about is rider safety. It costs money and makes the races less entertaining and less profitable.

Apologies for the pessimism. May there be a light at the end of the tunnel. I just cannot see it now.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Accordingly would be to relegate, not disqualify. Can you explain to me how this case was particularly more serious than other incidents where riders have been sanctioned with the "endangering other riders" rule?

No I can't. But I am not going to criticize UCI for a decision that I think made sense just because they have been inconsistent in the past. I think riders safety should be a priority and while I understand where you come from, Sagan was probably punished harshly compared to others because of the elbow thing, regardless of what UCI might or might not have said.

Well, to send him home it *has* to be a particularly serious case, "just" endangering others while deviating is not enough. That is the rules.

 

[the_reign_man]

I think this passionate tribute, this piece of art, says it all :razz:

Since U Sagan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDCI89VaFwU

 

[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.

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.

Many sprinters did in the past moves, which were not considered dangerous, because other riders avoided them. Now UCI wanted to send a message about safety and did what they did. If there would be a proper rule, the riders would have been penalized every time, when the rule is broken, and there would be no need to send messages like this. And of course riders would know exactly, that when they break the rule, will get penalized, and not only depending on reactions of riders behind. There would be more justice and more safety in cycling.

 

[SKSemtex]

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.

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

No, it is not from Slovak TV , it is just a musterpiece from the biggest bunch sprint expert DFA who surely has much mire experience than Greipel, who said quite streighr. IT WAS CAVs fault who should not have gone for that space or who should have pushed the break when seeing that there is no space for two anymore. And I hope nobody can tell here that Greipel is CAV's hater or that he is just bullshitting here to look imprtant like many of us here .

 

[DFA123]

Why is Greipel the final word on the subject? Why not what Kittel, Cavendish or Matthews said? All of whom said the decision had some merit and that safety has to come first.

And anyway, how is Greipel better placed to apply the rules than Philippe Marien or the other commisaires? Considering he only reached his decision based on watching on TV - the same as the commisaires. That's like claiming a footballer not involved in the incident is better placed to decide what is or isn't a red card than the referee. Ludicrous.

 

[ihosama]

Re:

...

...

Now folks, you both are trolling. Lets agree to disagree till new facts come, at least.
All that we wanted to say was said by now.

 

[animir]

points system change

As I have never agreed with that points system change since 2015, which on purpose undervalued certain stage standings to hurt one rider, I have recalculated points for Kittel and Demare according to the both systems.

Till stage 7 Demare has lost 9 points nad Kittel has gained 13 points because of that change in points system.
With the previous system would be Demare still in the lead with 191 points vs 184 points for Kittel.

Of course I dont want to take anything away from Kittels performance. I just want to point out, how stupid that change was. If Sagan were french, they wouldnt do it and now it hits the french rider, who has maybe one in life chance to win the green jersey, considering Gaviria is coming.

In my opinion the best way to improve competition was just to wait until other riders gests better form like Demare, or new talents come like Gaviria.

Here is the table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14hnRCCyf5z3p5D1a2ArBRxVLVQm0DpNDCd59lMcQMx8/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Many sprinters did in the past moves, which were not considered dangerous, because other riders avoided them. Now UCI wanted to send a message about safety and did what they did. If there would be a proper rule, the riders would have been penalized every time, when the rule is broken, and there would be no need to send messages like this. And of course riders would know exactly, that when they break the rule, will get penalized, and not only depending on reactions of riders behind. There would be more justice and more safety in cycling.

Good idea. Let's martyr him! It was the UCI's inability to provide a clearer rule, not his belligerence, that caused him to ride dangerously, but now his dangerous riding has shone a light on the UCI's failings and cycling will be better and safer for the injuries he has caused!

 

[Gorecki]

Many sprinters did in the past moves, which were not considered dangerous, because other riders avoided them. Now UCI wanted to send a message about safety and did what they did. If there would be a proper rule, the riders would have been penalized every time, when the rule is broken, and there would be no need to send messages like this. And of course riders would know exactly, that when they break the rule, will get penalized, and not only depending on reactions of riders behind. There would be more justice and more safety in cycling.

Good idea. Let's martyr him! It was the UCI's inability to provide a clearer rule, not his belligerence, that caused him to ride dangerously, but now his dangerous riding has shone a light on the UCI's failings and cycling will be better and safer for the injuries he has caused!

Well, the injuries of Cav, he has caused them to himself.
There is a crucial part of a bicycle that is called BRAKES.
But I guess his reckless riding in the past has proven that he doesnt know about them.

 

[ihosama]

Good idea. Let's martyr him! ...

No martyring please. We would all prefer to have him alive and compete again!
Both of them, actually.

The crash was directly caused by Cav running out of luck. The sewer hole, the spectators, those 5 centimeters Sagan moved to right more than Cav hoped he would, those all combined to give him little chance once he got in. The gamble simply did not pay off this time.

But. There would be no crisis situation for Cav ego to fail at, had Sagan not curtailed Cav's path. Whether knowingly or not. So line deviation penalization would be still debated, but accepted had Démare been relegated for the same offense. Since that did not happen, it all moves from "is the penalty appropriate" to "selective justice" debate. Lets hope CAS clears at least some of that mud.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, the injuries of Cav, he has caused them to himself.
There is a crucial part of a bicycle that is called BRAKES.
But I guess his reckless riding in the past has proven that he doesnt know about them.

So he should just let Wonderboy barge him out the way with a reckless sideways move? It's like talking to Paul Tracy fans. He was an Indy/Champ Car driver who would regularly stick his nose down the inside of others regardless of whether the move was on or not, saying "the onus is on the other guy to know I won't back down, so they've got to realise they have to ease off or we'll crash". Essentially "they should let me through because otherwise there will be an accident".

No, Cav is no angel, but at the same time he was under no obligation to let somebody barge him out of the way like that. Some riders will back off and let Sagan have his way because they're more willing to stay upright than they are to contest the place. Others will resist, because they feel they've got the right wheel and don't want to be barged out of it, especially not when there isn't open space to continue into at the same speed so they have to sacrifice the sprint by easing up. Sure, that carries with it the inherent risk of a crash, and Cav came off worst this time. But this is precisely what I mean by absolving Sagan of responsibility. Regardless of whether Cav could have or should have braked or so, if Sagan hadn't been riding dangerously Cav wouldn't have had to make that choice.

 

[blutto]

Well, the injuries of Cav, he has caused them to himself.
There is a crucial part of a bicycle that is called BRAKES.
But I guess his reckless riding in the past has proven that he doesnt know about them.

So he should just let Wonderboy barge him out the way with a reckless sideways move? It's like talking to Paul Tracy fans. He was an Indy/Champ Car driver who would regularly stick his nose down the inside of others regardless of whether the move was on or not, saying "the onus is on the other guy to know I won't back down, so they've got to realise they have to ease off or we'll crash". Essentially "they should let me through because otherwise there will be an accident".

No, Cav is no angel, but at the same time he was under no obligation to let somebody barge him out of the way like that. Some riders will back off and let Sagan have his way because they're more willing to stay upright than they are to contest the place. Others will resist, because they feel they've got the right wheel and don't want to be barged out of it, especially not when there isn't open space to continue into at the same speed so they have to sacrifice the sprint by easing up. Sure, that carries with it the inherent risk of a crash, and Cav came off worst this time. But this is precisely what I mean by absolving Sagan of responsibility. Regardless of whether Cav could have or should have braked or so, if Sagan hadn't been riding dangerously Cav wouldn't have had to make that choice.

...you're right he isn't... he is one of the most aggressive sprinters in Tour history....and a wailing crybaby when things don't go his way....and now after blathering on about the "magic" elbow that never was he has proven himself a bald-faced liar trying to cynically take advantage of a fukc-up largely of his own making....his old nickname Cavendouche wasn't as much given as it was earned and richly deserved....

....he tried to stuff five pounds of $h!t into a three pound bag and got a pile of crap all over himself....and its not like the first time he has done that, in fact he has a long and sordid history doing just that and btw taking down a lot of people in the process....but of course this time its so different because your personal bête noire was involved....oh boo hoo....I feel your pain, in fact we all do.... .....

Cheers

 

[Gorecki]

Well, the injuries of Cav, he has caused them to himself.
There is a crucial part of a bicycle that is called BRAKES.
But I guess his reckless riding in the past has proven that he doesnt know about them.

So he should just let Wonderboy barge him out the way with a reckless sideways move? It's like talking to Paul Tracy fans. He was an Indy/Champ Car driver who would regularly stick his nose down the inside of others regardless of whether the move was on or not, saying "the onus is on the other guy to know I won't back down, so they've got to realise they have to ease off or we'll crash". Essentially "they should let me through because otherwise there will be an accident".

No, Cav is no angel, but at the same time he was under no obligation to let somebody barge him out of the way like that. Some riders will back off and let Sagan have his way because they're more willing to stay upright than they are to contest the place. Others will resist, because they feel they've got the right wheel and don't want to be barged out of it, especially not when there isn't open space to continue into at the same speed so they have to sacrifice the sprint by easing up. Sure, that carries with it the inherent risk of a crash, and Cav came off worst this time. But this is precisely what I mean by absolving Sagan of responsibility. Regardless of whether Cav could have or should have braked or so, if Sagan hadn't been riding dangerously Cav wouldn't have had to make that choice.

And this is you giving him responsibility for something he didnt have control of.

Your reasoning is absurd, sorry.
It wasnt Sagans duty to expect his royal highness Cavendish behind him and clearing him the way. There was space exactly for two riders. Sagan moved a little bit to the right making it for two riders impossible. Since he was infront, he couldnt see Cav. But you keep insisting that it was some kind of duty for him.

Cav gambled. It was a risky move and he could have expected that when a path opens, it can also close. More so when you depend on centimeters of free space between a rider and fence and you dont count with a manhole or spectator leaning over it. He gambled and the risk didnt pay off. And when you are so reckless (as he has proven to be countless times before directly hurting other riders), when your ego is so big that you value your win over the safety of yourself and more so of other riders, I understand that you simply dont brake and cant let it go. If you gamble, be prepared to lose. But dont take others with you. What is exactly what this spoiled brat has done over and over again.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

...and Sagan moving to his right so there wasn't room for two riders, when previously there was, is precisely what the violation he was called for was. I'm not giving him responsibility for something he didn't have control of, he could easily, you know, have sprinted in a straight line.

And if you think he was squeezed from his left (not too unreasonable an assertion), why didn't he brake and be prepared to lose, rather than veer right and take others with him? After all, that's what you're asking of Cavendish, is it not fair to hold Sagan to the same standards?

I suspect not, since every single one of your posts on this forum to date is to do with Sagan, and most of them since this incident furthering the standpoint that Cavendish was wholly responsible for this incident and Sagan was an innocent bystander. Your latest post tells me this clearly isn't a discussion we're going to find common ground on.

 

[tobydawq]

Well, the injuries of Cav, he has caused them to himself.
There is a crucial part of a bicycle that is called BRAKES.
But I guess his reckless riding in the past has proven that he doesnt know about them.

So he should just let Wonderboy barge him out the way with a reckless sideways move? It's like talking to Paul Tracy fans. He was an Indy/Champ Car driver who would regularly stick his nose down the inside of others regardless of whether the move was on or not, saying "the onus is on the other guy to know I won't back down, so they've got to realise they have to ease off or we'll crash". Essentially "they should let me through because otherwise there will be an accident".

No, Cav is no angel, but at the same time he was under no obligation to let somebody barge him out of the way like that. Some riders will back off and let Sagan have his way because they're more willing to stay upright than they are to contest the place. Others will resist, because they feel they've got the right wheel and don't want to be barged out of it, especially not when there isn't open space to continue into at the same speed so they have to sacrifice the sprint by easing up. Sure, that carries with it the inherent risk of a crash, and Cav came off worst this time. But this is precisely what I mean by absolving Sagan of responsibility. Regardless of whether Cav could have or should have braked or so, if Sagan hadn't been riding dangerously Cav wouldn't have had to make that choice.

LOL. Should you really be the person complaining about bias when it comes to discussions about Sagan?

There are no former teammates who have spoken badly about him, no rivals who have ever been involved in any real polemics against him and apart from the Vantomme incident (and of course the long-ago Flanders podium antics) and his annoying interview style, nothing suggests that he is a particularly unlikeable character.

Yet you drone on about him as if he were Anti-christ reborn and then complain about bias from his supporters. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but it certainly seems hypocritical.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yet you drone on about him as if he were Anti-christ reborn and then complain about bias from his supporters. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but it certainly seems hypocritical.

Sure, which is why I've left his character entirely out of this discussion. Because I *do* think there is a LOT unlikable about him, but I also recognize that his character is irrelevant to this particular DQ incident. And it's also why I've said that I think the DQ is highly debatable, and that the original punishment did not seem unfair. I do feel, however, that he was clearly in the wrong on this occasion. However, I also get a lot of stick for my stance on Sagan, and there has been a lot of sour grapes, absolution, tantrums about decisions and attempts to spin the story from Sagan fans that I feel need to be called out as being just as biased and petulant.

 

[ihosama]

Yet you drone on about him as if he were Anti-christ reborn and then complain about bias from his supporters. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but it certainly seems hypocritical.

For the record. LS was very reserved regarding this incident. Lets keep it that way.

Even (most) Sagan fans considered the original penalization as acceptable. Not welcome, not agreed with, but acceptable, given the written rules.
What they do not accept is the mantra that 100% blame lays on Sagan, none on Cav and that Démare was not punished for a much worse offense of the same rule. The selective justice part with politics thrown in for the DQ is what makes the cake so smelly.

And yes, there are those who blindly see him as 100% innocent.

But here comes the thing. From those seeing Sagan as completely innocent, most would change their view had Démare been penalized. Because on the scale of breaking the line while endangering other riders, Démare vs. Sagan line in that sprint is like Night and Day compared, not to mention the conscious vs. unconscious aspect of their movement.

People can get really pissed off on an obvious injustice. Much more so then when their favourite is being "just penalized".

LS, if I can. Putting aside penalization severity, do you believe it is acceptable Sagan was penalized and Démare not? Secondly, do you believe it is acceptable that Sagan was not allowed to defend his case in front of the jury?

To me these are the biggest issues.
The "line deviation/not" by Sagan is debatable so jury saying he did so is OK, as long as the same is said of Démare. But once we accept that Démare intentionally clipping Bouhani wheel is "OK" then it automatically makes Sagan slight line deviation OK too and the only thing left is the "elbow" which did not happen.
EDIT: cleanup

 

[animir]

Many sprinters did in the past moves, which were not considered dangerous, because other riders avoided them. Now UCI wanted to send a message about safety and did what they did. If there would be a proper rule, the riders would have been penalized every time, when the rule is broken, and there would be no need to send messages like this. And of course riders would know exactly, that when they break the rule, will get penalized, and not only depending on reactions of riders behind. There would be more justice and more safety in cycling.

Good idea. Let's martyr him! It was the UCI's inability to provide a clearer rule, not his belligerence, that caused him to ride dangerously, but now his dangerous riding has shone a light on the UCI's failings and cycling will be better and safer for the injuries he has caused!

Isn't there a bit too much irony in your post?

What happend in stage 4 and after that, cannot be changed, but still it's a good impulse to think about things. And its even better, when you forget the names and just think in general. Referees from table will never find out a better rule, but experienced riders could do it. The better rule would legalize some moves and penalize other moves, but as a direct consequence, the penalized rider did, and not as consequence what another rider did or not did. The current situation is so bad, that there is not much to lose. It could still be tested on some smaller races.

And if it would influnce riders? Sprintig is quite instinktive, but if a much better rule comes from riders themselves, it should have some influence, at least on average. For less sever violation of the rule, the penalty would be less severe, but for repeated violations it could get worse, even the violation was not too severe.

 

[Gorecki]

Re:

...and Sagan moving to his right so there wasn't room for two riders, when previously there was, is precisely what the violation he was called for was. I'm not giving him responsibility for something he didn't have control of, he could easily, you know, have sprinted in a straight line.

And if you think he was squeezed from his left (not too unreasonable an assertion), why didn't he brake and be prepared to lose, rather than veer right and take others with him? After all, that's what you're asking of Cavendish, is it not fair to hold Sagan to the same standards?

I suspect not, since every single one of your posts on this forum to date is to do with Sagan, and most of them since this incident furthering the standpoint that Cavendish was wholly responsible for this incident and Sagan was an innocent bystander. Your latest post tells me this clearly isn't a discussion we're going to find common ground on.

No. I said that Sagan has slightly moved right, what made space for NEARLY two riders suddenly impossible. And that is not Sagans fault. Every rider is doing that, nobody goes only PERCECTLY in his line. Even more so when you are trying to overtake someone, what Sagan was doing. I am not talking about completely taking someones line. Sagan moved only a little, but that was enough to make that path for Cav impossible. And he had a lot of time to realise that, but he went anyway, leaning on Sagan, trying to budge him out of the way, what indirectly caused his fall. Or helped it.

Therefore your call for the same standards is out of place. Cav saw that there is no place and he should expect that the path, when measured by centimeters of SAFELY overtaking Sagan can be hindered in seconds. He is experienced. But he went anyway. Because he didnt care for the safety. Or maybe he expected that since he is like a Moses, that there will be path for him anyway, because he wants it. He only wanted to win. Selfish whining egomaniac. Thats a fact and that is Cavs character. Sagans character is exactly the opposite, but this is not the topic. But it helps and explains a lot about what happened.

And I am merely responding to your arguments, that you think that Sagan was responsible for not giving Cav his space, when he didnt even know about him, which is amazingly ignorant and of course biased. But I wont get to the low point of agrumentum ad hominem, like you did, even if that would be so much easier.

Btw, the main difference between Sagan and Demare is that Sagan didnt know that his maneuvre will affect rider behind him, but Demare DID. But the jury of course ignored that. Because he didnt "cause" the crash.

Its like the police giving you the ticket when you dont stop on the STOP sign only if you cause an accident by that. Utterly stupid.