• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Poll on when to wait for the leader in a GT

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Select each case where you think the contenders ought to wait if the leader in a GT has to stop

  • Top contenders still together at an important point (e.g. 2017 Froome mechanical on Mont du Chat) bu

    Votes: 25 21.2%
  • Whole pack together but at a critical point (e.g. chasing a break in last 10km of a flat stage)

    Votes: 6 5.1%
  • Whole pack together at a non-critical point (e.g. no real chase is on)

    Votes: 61 51.7%
  • Dumoulin bathroom break in 2017 Giro (this also fits the definition of the bullet above)

    Votes: 14 11.9%
  • Top contenders still together early on last climb of MTF (e.g. 10km to go)

    Votes: 20 16.9%
  • A selection among contenders has occurred (some top 10 favorites left behind, not like the Mont du C

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Selection among contenders has occurred on MTF but still around 10K to go (e.g. 2003 Armstrong crash

    Votes: 9 7.6%
  • 1 km to go on MTF

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Never

    Votes: 58 49.2%

  • Total voters
    118
Only the first option can at least theoretically be treated as race not being on. In every other case no-one should be waited after, regardless of their position in a GC or some other classification. Even in case of the first option, the peloton should neither stop nor slow down, but just continue at the pace they were going prior to the incident. After all, races being decided by bad luck is as old as bike racing itself.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
If the poll asks "when they ought to", then never. If it asks when I would wait, then "Whole pack together at a non-critical point (e.g. no real chase is on)", because most likely the potential benefits don't justify risking retaliation in the future and "live and let live" would apply.

So yeah, I guess I'll vote for the first option.
This.

............
 
Jul 6, 2016
599
1
0
Visit site
It's also kind of ridiculous they're riding those ultra lightweight bikes that already break after the slightest contact. And those high-end Dura Ace components which are pretty vulnerable as well. Just suck up your problems and race for good man's sake. But as I said, it's too late.
 
I voted nothing, riders should do whatever they want and reap the consequences of their actions on the road. That being said, attacking at the point when you see someone signaling a mechanical is not something I would do, feels like a cheap move. I wouldn't wait either, just keep riding the same pace, until someone else attacks, or the rider in question comes back, whichever happens first.
 
If riders are over 50km from the finish on a dull meaningless flat stage then they should wait for the leader or an important gc rider as I don't want to see races decided like that. I can also see why some would wait like they did in Stage 2 this year. But on the last climb of the queen stage of a grand tour then it's a free for all. Possibly attacking straight away isn't the most courteous thing to do, but there is definitely no problem riding on at the same speed. Attacking isn't too much, but it's understandable if the rider getting attacked gets annoyed (assuming they don't do the same).

It's a stupid unwritten rule because, hypothetically, if a gc leader is feeling bad and struggling slightly, they could fake a mechanical or inflict a minor one upon themselves. This lets them slow down and regain energy, as then everyone waits for them.
 
fiddlers25 said:
The Hitch said:
I don't give a **** who is the leader.

Any rules need to apply to all riders, not favour one rider over another.

This is like saying that the person in tennis who has the highest seed should be allowed an extra serve (3 instead of 2) whenever they play a lower seed.

Either rules apply to everyone or they apply to no one.

So 30 guys are left in the middle of a mountain stage and the 25th place rider on GC flats and the group should wait? Disagree. Waiting should be a rare thing, not used for insignificant placings.

What defines "insignificant"? A Pro Continental team with it's first invite to the Tour, with no gc guy but a bunch of stage hunters. One of that team's chief stage hunters gets a flat or crashes. To that team he is significant. Should they, because they don't have the budget of the Pro Tour teams, be treated as an afterthought? I think it should be all or nothing. Wait or not wait at all unless extreme circumstances occur. An example would be the case of the Hoogerland, Flecha, in a break I believe with Voekler, the two fore mentioned riders crash in the Tour caused by some idiot race official escorting dignitaries and drives them into a barb wire fence. The race should have been immediately neutralized until the riders involved were back rolling again or deemed unable to finish the stage. That was an interesting case because I believe Hoogerland was riding for a Pro Continental team at the time and Flecha was riding for a Pro Tour team.
 
I can undesrstand thouse gentlemen agreements in past when it was mainly fight between the leaders and when they knew that legs would be talking in the mountains. Today we have a fight of some leaders against the whole teams of domestics that are on the similar level then they are. Today every chance has to be used to get some time against the main oponents.
It is easy to be gentleman when you are Froome and later ask the favour back, when you and you team is on trouble, but it is not so easy to be gentlamen when you have only one single shot in 3 weeks to distance the Sky reader.
Stupid "gentleman rule" that has no place anymore in cycling.
 
May 11, 2017
19
0
0
Visit site
[/quote]

So 30 guys are left in the middle of a mountain stage and the 25th place rider on GC flats and the group should wait? Disagree. Waiting should be a rare thing, not used for insignificant placings.[/quote]

What defines "insignificant"? A Pro Continental team with it's first invite to the Tour, with no gc guy but a bunch of stage hunters. One of that team's chief stage hunters gets a flat or crashes. To that team he is significant. Should they, because they don't have the budget of the Pro Tour teams, be treated as an afterthought? I think it should be all or nothing. Wait or not wait at all unless extreme circumstances occur. An example would be the case of the Hoogerland, Flecha, in a break I believe with Voekler, the two fore mentioned riders crash in the Tour caused by some idiot race official escorting dignitaries and drives them into a barb wire fence. The race should have been immediately neutralized until the riders involved were back rolling again or deemed unable to finish the stage. That was an interesting case because I believe Hoogerland was riding for a Pro Continental team at the time and Flecha was riding for a Pro Tour team.[/quote]

In my view there are a couple cases where they should wait for the GC leader (pack is together or even just all main GC guys are together and it's not near the end of the stage) but waiting for anyone other than the GC leader should be more limited otherwise there will be too much waiting and not enough racing. ok to wait for the GC podium guys in the last few days of the tour perhaps but not much beyond that. For non-GC guys fighting for a stage in a break like the Hoogerland case you mentioned, if there is still aways to go there the break will likely prefer to ease up a little in order to have the help from the rider who had the mechanical and avoid having his team chase whereas if it is later in the stage then usually the break has a big risk of being caught and can't afford to ease up.
 
Remember Sastre in a mountain stage of the Tour 2010. Attacking when Contador was involved in a crash or mechanical. He wasn't even a factor for GC. He got so upset when somebody tried to stop him. At the end of the race they ask him why he did that and he answered something like this: "Nobody has waited for me, I am not waiting for anybody".

Simple!
 
May 15, 2012
75
0
0
Visit site
If it is of benefit to attack, attack. If it isn't, then don't. Very black and white for everybody to understand.

The only reason Aru was neutralised was because of Porte who is BFFs with froome.

Porte is an idiot. If it was reversed i would bet money Froome wouldn't have neutralised the attack but gone with the flow.
 
Re:

Kicker661 said:
If it is of benefit to attack, attack. If it isn't, then don't. Very black and white for everybody to understand.

The only reason Aru was neutralised was because of Porte who is BFFs with froome.

Porte is an idiot. If it was reversed i would bet money Froome wouldn't have neutralised the attack but gone with the flow.
Depends: if Froome is in yellow then he always neutralises attacks, as he knows he's going to win anyway. But I agree that if it had been Nibali instead of Froome in yellow with a mechanical, Porte would not have stopped the race.
 
I'd say that in any given situation, if you wouldn't wait for any of the other (GC) riders, don't wait for the leader.
In fact, I'd say actual waiting - as opposed to simply not attacking - should be left for mass-crash situations, in which finding out how many badly injured there are might be necessary. (TdF 2015 springs to mind).
Also, in some situations there's no point in waiting; Porte in this year's Tour for example, I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming back.
And always; if the attack has already started - continue!

Red Rick said:
Almost never; attacking at flat parts when nothing is happening is a bit too much for me.

Funny, I would say when nothing happens is the best time to attack. :p
Or, did you mean other than the leader having crashed/had a mechanic?
 
I almost voted never, but chose instead option 1, which is close to never. There are rare exceptions - like a forced crash (causing someone to crash on purpose), but if someone crashes or gets a mechanical, or sick, that's not an exception. This is 2017, not 1957. The idea is to win. Winning is what you get paid for. Winning pleases sponsors. If you crash, it's probably your fault. If you get a mechanical, it's probably your team's fault. If you get sick, it's you and your team's fault (or bad luck). If a person runs in front of you slowing you down, too bad. If a train goes by, it sucks, but there's no rule about it, nor should there be. Shjt happens. Welcome to modern competitive professional sports.

Long ago cycling gave up the quaint notion that the yellow jersey should ride most of the day at the very front of the race and dictate who could attack when. The "gentleman's rules" of things like opportunistic attacking should have went with it. Either that, or make it an actual rule.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Singer01 said:
For all those saying 'never wait' what if your team mate takes out the competitor? Surely it's at least gauche and at most highly suspicious to attack at that point?
That's a super specific scenario that has happened approximately zero times since I've been following this sport.
In all the races since you've been watching cycling the race leader has never been taken out by someone? Utter shite.
 
Re:

Singer01 said:
For all those saying 'never wait' what if your team mate takes out the competitor? Surely it's at least gauche and at most highly suspicious to attack at that point?

That's why I differentiate between waiting; slowing down from the speed you were already riding, and simply not attacking; refraining from increasing the pace for a few seconds.
Also, just because the riders on the team that caused the incident probably shouldn't attack, it shouldn't stop riders from any of the other teams from doing so.
 
There are too many variables to make answering this straightforward but it is encouraging to see that more than two thirds of us (currently) think that waiting on the yellow jersey is entirely suitable conduct when the race isn't going full gas. Hopefully posters will remember this poll when they get irritated at riders like Porte and Quintana for having the audacity to try and be gentlemen.

How anyone can try to defend Aru's actions on the Chat is beyond me. He clearly had zero intention of attacking at that moment until the instant Froome put his hand up.

It would have been similarly pathetic and frowned upon if it Aru had done that if it was Porte, Quintana or Bardet (not in yellow) that he had attacked in the same way. I'm very confident Froome and the other GC guys would have behaved the same in shutting down Aru in those circumstances too. And the race is all the better for it.
 

TRENDING THREADS