Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

First Rule of Being a PRO in ANY SPORT.

#1 Know the Rules!

There was a SKY rider with him. Why not take his wheel? One could say confusion, heat of moment. Yes Agreed!

You could also say. NO! Keep your wheel! I need you for the chase back!

Let's not forget Ted King getting eliminated for 7 seconds in the TDF! ELIMINATED! SENT HOME FU Teddy! Game over!
The rules are the rules. There are riders penalized daily! You want to argue 2 minutes is too much. I got ya, Lets debate it! Fine! I would have taken into light his time loss today. And then I would have given him 45 seconds more. Assuming that would be the average time it would take a mechanic to swap the wheel and give him a push.

Brailsford should STFU. IMHO.
SKY are the New England Patriots of Cycling. They have not seen a rule book they like. Tramadol, Xenon, Froomes feed on Alpe. So if you want to argue Sportsmanship. Read my last sentence. You preach clean cycling. I with you! Then you give riders Tramadol now FU! Can't have it both ways?

Porte.
If you expect Contador to show him a 2 min gap tomorrow as a gift. I would only refer you to your local shrink! See Porte's antics in the 2013 tour. And his buddy Froome's Book. Now Richie has to ride out of his skin to podium. Good luck.

When you do not Honor the Rules. You have no Sport. You are now PRO Wrestling!

He is luck not to be DQ'ed

Nah, they copped the 2 minute penalty that the rules say are the appropriate punishment for breaking the rules that they broke.

The head of the jury today, according to race radio, is the same one that booted Ted King from the 2013 Tour for those seven seconds. He's also the same one that booted Froome from the 2010 Giro for holding a motorbike.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Simon's take on it: https://youtu.be/XY6sfvILsVY?t=4m48s

As for myself, I understand the point of the rule. It attempts to keep things transparent and maintain healthy competition by impeding brash collusion between supposed opponents. But as seen today, what it achieve is a far cry from that. Yes, it's there and it's for everyone, but tautology is no justification for a rule. It's a slippery slope, I reckon, but it's a big one and there will be consequences for leveling the hill. Being unable to help a mate when at no prejudice to you or your team is simply not something that should enforced.

Else I wonder why Samu isn't nailed to a cross. Well, I'd say probably because it'd serve no point.

Samu?

 

[Vino's Mum]

Re:

ELIMINATED! SENT HOME FU Teddy!

lols yeah, that one was harsh.



Anyhow, two things I really don't get about all this...

1. Why the heck did Clarke give Porte a wheel? Yeah sure, they're mates, and so on, but really?

2. Why did Porte have trouble staying with Puccio, Henao, and Siutsou afterwards? It's not like they're Froomey, Wiggins, and Thomas.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

Lets see how strictly they'll follow the rules for the rest of the race.
They've set the standard with this one.

So really lenient? After all they didn't DQ him for the push.

Press the back button. Now click on all of the other pdf files involving rules applicable to an elite road rider who doesn't take part in other bicycle sports. But I'll tell you what, you find me a single pro rider who knows even the 170 pages worth of rules in the single document you've selected and I'll buy you a beer. You won't find one.

Of course, nobody has yet found a single rider or ds who says they knew about this particular rule. I'm sure there must be some, given that a few riders have been done for it before.

You keep going on and on about this. Exactly who is polling the Pro Tour to find out who does and does not know which rules? Are you?

To rely upon that rationale, one must have tangible evidence that someone is actually looking for what you purport to be a rather elusive prey: the rider or DS who has specifically stated publicly that they are aware of this "obscure" rule.

Oh, and you might want to try that math again: he said there are about 32 pages out of the 169 in the road racing booklet that are of importance to a Pro Tour rider, plus maybe the 100 on anti-doping (which you specifically acknowledge you are familiar with when you accept your license), plus the 30 pages on punishments and 7 on labor conditions which gets us back to 169.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

2. Why did Porte have trouble staying with Puccio, Henao, and Siutsou afterwards? It's not like they're Froomey, Wiggins, and Thomas.

They were attempting to move back in a less than optimal way. Their line was in the slipstream of a car when Porte looked like he was having difficulty. The rider closest to the car was benefiting most from the hole in the air punched by the car while Porte, the rider furthest back, was benefiting far less. The slipstream of the riders in front wasn't big enough to compensate. When behind a car, traveling at car speeds, the protected rider should be in front of the line.

Short answer, the problem was stupidity rather than having anything to do with his physical condition.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Lets see how strictly they'll follow the rules for the rest of the race.
They've set the standard with this one.

So really lenient? After all they didn't DQ him for the push.

Press the back button. Now click on all of the other pdf files involving rules applicable to an elite road rider who doesn't take part in other bicycle sports. But I'll tell you what, you find me a single pro rider who knows even the 170 pages worth of rules in the single document you've selected and I'll buy you a beer. You won't find one.

Of course, nobody has yet found a single rider or ds who says they knew about this particular rule. I'm sure there must be some, given that a few riders have been done for it before. But how shocking it must be to the gloating axe-grinders on this thread who are pretending to think that pro bike riders are in any way likely to know all of the UCI regulations that the general reaction from the pros has been confusion. Why ever could that be? It's inexplicable. After all, some pompous message board posts from people who themselves didn't know the rule existed until a few hours ago assure me that it's common knowledge! And that riders who don't know all of the regulations are amateurs.

Actually it's just that one booklet about road rules. What a road rider would need to know are the pages between 25-56, so about 32 pages of rules. Insane, right. Being insane, I'd also expect all of the riders to have a pretty good grasp of the 100 pages on medical and anti-doping rules and most of them to be fairly acquainted with most of the under 30 pages on what the actual punishments are and the 7 pages on labor conditions. The rest of the regulations mainly deal with licensing and other disciplines.

BTW, if you think that's crazy, you'd be beyond appalled at what every citizen of non-common-law countries is expected by law to know of the law. And that Ignorantia juris non excusat. What's more, in Europe, ignorantia iuris nocet.

So by your count we are now up to 307 pages. And whatever your bizarre "expectations" may be, you won't be able to find even one rider who actually does know all of what's contained in them. Funny that, isn't it? It's almost as if your "expectations" are completely irrelevant.

"By the way", ignorance of the law is also no defence in criminal proceedings in common law countries. But in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, no judge has ever actually believed that anyone appearing in front of him or her really knows every law and provision. And that includes both prosecution and defence lawyers as well as the accused, for the simple reason that it is not possible to know every law and provision. Lawyers do not recite the law from memory, they look it up. The principle that ignorance is no defence to a criminal charge is a matter of public policy, designed to avoid imposing an impossible burden of proof on the prosecution. It is not a statement of belief that any individual actually has a complete knowledge of the law. That's the kind of stupidity we reserve for internet forums.

No, common law has desuetude. So laws can become unenforceable if no one knows about them. I don't know how you got to 307 but I'm guessing arithmetic isn't your strong suit, either. BTW, not only can you get convicted of a crime you had no knowledge was a crime, but you can be convicted of something you have no knowledge took place which turned out to be a crime. But yeah, you definitely seem the type where you think pro's shouldn't be bothered by things like doping regulations, which made up most of my tally (you know, the one you get when you actually use addition as the proper tool to obtain sums). Can't agree with you more on the terrifyingly unfathomable scale of the particular strain of stupidity that seems reserved for internet forums.

 

[ILovecycling]

ouch,feel sorry for Porte,bad for the race also.

 

[Vino's Mum]

Re: Re:

They were attempting to move back in a less than optimal way. Their line was in the slipstream of a car when Porte looked like he was having difficulty. The rider closest to the car was benefiting most from the hole in the air punched by the car while Porte, the rider furthest back, was benefiting far less. The slipstream of the riders in front wasn't big enough to compensate. When behind a car, traveling at car speeds, the protected rider should be in front of the line.

Ah ok. I was only half-watching at the time and don't remember them being quite so close to the cars, so thanks for that.

...Short answer, the problem was stupidity rather than having anything to do with his physical condition.

Yeah, that sounds about right!

 

[sienna]

You'd have to go for Contador now - you don't want an Italian winning the race.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:


You keep going on and on about this. Exactly who is polling the Pro Tour to find out who does and does not know which rules? Are you?[/quote]

You are the person who "expects" riders and sports directors to know all of the UCI regulations. I am telling you that your expectation is incorrect. I am basing that on my (limited) first hand knowledge of riders, my somewhat less limited knowledge of other pro athletes, the fact that this incident happened in the first place, the generally confused reaction of the pros on twitter today and my memory of previous incidents where obscure rules came in to play and caused confusion. As against that, you keep repeating your "expectation" without providing the slightest justification other than your belief that this is how things should be. At least that's an improvement over our friend who tried to find a parallel in the criminal legal principle that ignorance is no defence, only to display a thorough misunderstanding of the basis of that principle.

The easiest way for you to justify the expectation in your head would be for you to show that some large number of riders actually meet your expectations. I'm so confident that your expectations are complete and utter bollocks that I'll concede the point if you can find even one. Go ask as many as you like. Go waste their time on twitter, instead of mine here. While you are at it, you may as well report back to us if any riders say that they knew about this particular rule, not because it would prove anything in particular but because it would be moderately interesting if we could find even a solitary counterpoint to today's confusion.

 

[Broth3r]

Re: Re:

Simon's take on it: https://youtu.be/XY6sfvILsVY?t=4m48s

As for myself, I understand the point of the rule. It attempts to keep things transparent and maintain healthy competition by impeding brash collusion between supposed opponents. But as seen today, what it achieve is a far cry from that. Yes, it's there and it's for everyone, but tautology is no justification for a rule. It's a slippery slope, I reckon, but it's a big one and there will be consequences for leveling the hill. Being unable to help a mate when at no prejudice to you or your team is simply not something that should enforced.

Else I wonder why Samu isn't nailed to a cross. Well, I'd say probably because it'd serve no point.

Samu?

Gave many wheels to a mate of his... if not physical ones. And it's fine by me.

 

[King Boonen]

I'm going to take a we stab in the dark and guess that Sicard knows about this rule...

 

[JRanton]

Re:

The real focus should not be on the race jury, but on Sky's incompetence.
Having Eisel act at team captain and main lead out for Viviani is asking for trouble, but what were the other 6 riders dreaming about?
And was Brailsford or the DS in the team car at the end?
Let's face it, Porte was never going to win this, and Astanas best chance is Landa not Aru

From what I can gather the plan on flat stages was for the team to concentrate on Porte until the 3km to go sign and then Eisel and Puccio, if they were able to, would help position Viviani for the sprint. Not sure what happened today but there was plenty of looking around with seemingly nobody knowing what was happening. Nieve and Kiryienka didn't even drop back so presumably there was radio interference which often happens in towns and cities. I think Eisel is ultimately to blame as he should have had Porte on his wheel and should have noticed when the puncture happened. Ironically Porte was praising Eisel the other day. Doubt is he tonight after he cost him a chance, albeit a small one, of winning the Giro.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

[
No, common law has desuetude. So laws can become unenforceable if no one knows about them. I don't know how you got to 307 but I'm guessing arithmetic isn't your strong suit, either. BTW, not only can you get convicted of a crime you had no knowledge was a crime, but you can be convicted of something you have no knowledge took place which turned out to be a crime. But yeah, you definitely seem the type where you think pro's shouldn't be bothered by things like doping regulations, which made up most of my tally (you know, the one you get when you actually use addition as the proper tool to obtain sums). Can't agree with you more on the terrifyingly unfathomable scale of the particular strain of stupidity that seems reserved for internet forums.

1) Desuetude exists in civil law jurisdictions.
2) It doesn't exist in many common law jurisdictions.
3) Where it does exist the test is usually based on prolonged non-enforcement rather than lack of knowledge.
4) Yes, of course you can be convicted of something you did not know was a crime. That's simply a statement of the principle that ignorance is not a defence. It in no way implies that anyone at all, anywhere is actually in full knowledge of every law and statute for the very simply reason that nobody possibly could be. It exists because allowing ignorance as a defence would render many criminal laws unenforceable.
5) You know nothing about my attitude to doping.
6) Athletes, in my experience, do not in general avoid doping through detailed familiarity with 70 odd page sets of anti-doping regulations. They do so by learning a much smaller number of rules, like making their whereabouts known and not ingesting medications before they've been checked against banned lists.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Simon's take on it: https://youtu.be/XY6sfvILsVY?t=4m48s

As for myself, I understand the point of the rule. It attempts to keep things transparent and maintain healthy competition by impeding brash collusion between supposed opponents. But as seen today, what it achieve is a far cry from that. Yes, it's there and it's for everyone, but tautology is no justification for a rule. It's a slippery slope, I reckon, but it's a big one and there will be consequences for leveling the hill. Being unable to help a mate when at no prejudice to you or your team is simply not something that should enforced.

Else I wonder why Samu isn't nailed to a cross. Well, I'd say probably because it'd serve no point.

Samu?

Gave many wheels to a mate of his... if not physical ones. And it's fine by me.

What?

What does any of that mean? What are you talking about?

 

[etymology]

Re: Re:

christian wrote:

"Granted, Hitch - "all the time" is an exaggeration, but there seem to have been quite a few of these incidences. The one I'm thinking of concretely is, if my memory serves me right, from the legendary Galibier stage. You could see Sanchez and Contador avidly discussing tactics in the chasing group - of course they could have been talking about the weather, too - but judging from the context, the most likely explanation is that Sanchez asked an isolated Contador if he should put his Euskaltel team to work for him. Even though they didn't end up doing that cause Contador himself just didn't have the form to keep up with the best, it seems like a clear example of what I called "creating an unfair advantage by ganging up" - Contador was isolated yet all of a sudden he got a whole new batch of shiny orange team mates. Basically it was like everyone was riding on teams of 9 and Contador had a team of 18."


actually: obviously lacking physical form, contador's tactical decisions were fine. he wisely decided it was better to be isolated with sanchez than to risk riding with a whole new batch of notoriously crash-prone shiney orange team mates.

 

[thehook]

And I get the fact Simon is trying to do the right thing there. He is displaying great sportsmanship! I will not dishonor that by asking if he would do the same for Aru, Contador , or Uran. I will give him the benefit of the doubt there. He earned that by his actions.

But why the heck are you (Simon). Not breezing past Porte trying to work all out for your team 24/7. Last I checked ORICA pays your salary? What the heck do you care Porte has a puncture? Last time I checked this is not National teams?

I get give him a gel, bottle, help him chase back if your with him. But to stop and bleed time for SKY? By giving him your equipment. So you can finish after another team?! Do they do that in F1? Tennis? Soccer? Baseball? Football? Nascar? Hockey?

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

Lets see how strictly they'll follow the rules for the rest of the race.
They've set the standard with this one.

The thing is that in very recent years 2 riders were penalised in exactly the same way because of the same incident.

You can't make exceptions now. I mean Sicard was even leading the freaking race when he got DQ'd ..... I FRANCE!

Stop thinking the world is against Porte.

It sucks! That's what I agree on.

I'm not thinking what you're implying.
Read my post(s) about beating a man on the ground. That's the point.

It doesn't matter if he's allready on the ground.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

You keep going on and on about this. Exactly who is polling the Pro Tour to find out who does and does not know which rules? Are you?

You are the person who "expects" riders and sports directors to know all of the UCI regulations. I am telling you that your expectation is incorrect. I am basing that on my (limited) first hand knowledge of riders, my somewhat less limited knowledge of other pro athletes, the fact that this incident happened in the first place, the generally confused reaction of the pros on twitter today and my memory of previous incidents where obscure rules came in to play and caused confusion. As against that, you keep repeating your "expectation" without providing the slightest justification other than your belief that this is how things should be. At least that's an improvement over the clown who introduced the criminal legal principle that ignorance is no defence, only to display a thorough misunderstanding of the basis of that principle.
The easiest way for you to justify the expectation in your head would be for you to show that some large number of riders actually meet your expectations. I'm so confident that your expectations are complete and utter bollocks that I'll concede the point if you can find even one. Go ask as many as you like. Go waste their time on twitter, instead of mine here. While you are at it, you may as well report back to us if any riders say that they knew about this particular rule, not because it would prove anything in particular but because it would be moderately interesting if we could find even a solitary counterpoint to today's confusion.

I'm guessing that was meant for me because of the reference to legal principle (tags are apparently another thing you seem to struggle at). The legal principle I cited establishes, as honestly you surely must know, as you seem to have a working command of the legal questions involved, that ignorance of the law is no excuse of wrongdoing. That principle is near universal (I've given the exceptions I know of, you seem to quibble with them for some reason that continues to elude me, but we can take it outside if you want as whatever our differences may be they are surely beyond the scope of this argument). Why you continue to insist that a large number of riders should know about a rule for it to be enforceable is beyond me. That people (I include myself) think it unfair even though it follows the rules seem to be a near-universal sentiment on the punishment. But if your actual some kind of legal professional I'd remind you that a recourse of judicial discretion is not often available or desirable nor it any case it can be deemed necessary for "fairness" when the sentencing guidelines are beyond clear.

But even more so, to carry on with the admittedly imperfect analogy, precedent for sentencing on these infractions has been well and truly set. As far as is publicly known when a complaint has been filed the punishment has been duly meted. So there can be absolutely no issues with the punishment in this particular instance.

So if you're so gracious, will you please get on with conceding the point: https://twitter.com/philgaimon/status/600728548047851520

Also, evidently,

I'm going to take a we stab in the dark and guess that Sicard knows about this rule...

As to my expectations that riders should be familiar with at the very least 32 pages of regulations on racing rules and the relevant anti-doping regulations: this is not every law, statute and precedent that applies in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. It's a booklet (three, if you add medical and anti-doping). A rather plain spoken one. On which depends riders occasionally multi-million dollar livelihoods, not their iPad privacy concerns. Yeah, I think it's reasonable for WorldTour riders to have read through all 32 of them. I'd bet Porte actually knew about that rule but forgot. I'd bet all the DSs knew. He probably tweeted it out to get some sympathy -get in front of the story, so to speak. I bet Brailsford is actually really pissed at the team for screwing up. I have no way of knowing any of those things for sure. Still, it's completely besides the point in that the punishment was utterly, thoroughly, unquestionably reasonable given the rules that were in effect, however "unfair" you or anyone else thinks it is.

 

[Jancouver]

Re:

Who will be the podium now?

Like Porte ever was a real candidate for the podium.

Maybe in eyes of very few blindfolded delusional fans ...

common guys, this penalty does not change a thing

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Who will be the podium now?

Like Porte ever was a real candidate for the podium.

Maybe in eyes of very few blindfolded delusional fans ...

common guys, this penalty does not change a thing

Porte is nowhere near out of a podium spot. If the famed Porte "jour sans" does come, the podium battle will be had between Contador, Uran and the Astana boys. Health concerns among the first two would then give Astana a non-negligible shot at a trifecta.

 

[Velolover2]

Re:

Who will be the podium now?

It's very open. Porte still has a chance. Cataldo, Landa, Uran, Kreuziger, König and Caruso are other candidates. Amador is a good time trialist, but I think he is going to crack in the high mountains.

 

[HiroAntagonist]

Skybots going spastic. Love it. Thankfully this may well make the race more exciting. Plus, Skybots imploding, which is always a plus. But seriously, if Richie's RV gets a flat will.anyone lend a spare?

 

[Velolover2]

Re: Re:

Who will be the podium now?

Like Porte ever was a real candidate for the podium.

Maybe in eyes of very few blindfolded delusional fans ...

common guys, this penalty does not change a thing

Porte is nowhere near out of a podium spot. If the famed Porte "jour sans" does come, the podium battle will be had between Contador, Uran and the Astana boys. Health concerns among the first two would then give Astana a non-negligible shot at a trifecta.

If Uran really is sick and Contador going to dislocate his shoulder again, then we could very well have a cyan podium. 1. Aru, 2. Landa, 3. Cataldo..

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Imagine how many race results in last 50 years would be different if every rider with a mechanical had assistance from a mate on another Team. Teams would soon put a stop to that. Why do you think riders stand there waiting for team cars in Roubaix. Can't all start helping other Teams

Good. So now they know better!!