Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[movingtarget]

Too bad they don't apply their precious rules at level crossings where it can actually be life threatening. Consistency is the problem not so much the interpretation.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fai

I'm glad that in the non-anglophone world, the papers, media, tv etc aren't saying this is a bad decission at all. they are ridiculing porte and most of all sky for making these terrible mistakes. every team knows the rules or they are idiots and why isn't it that henao gave his bike to porte? they are LITERALLY the same size. and why didn't viviani and konig drop back? etc etc. the team is ran like a group of idiots

Well you have to wonder. The team that sweats over the details does not know ? Some of his team mates had to know. An extra few seconds would not have changed much but instead it costs him almost 3 minutes.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Too bad they don't apply their precious rules at level crossings where it can actually be life threatening. Consistency is the problem not so much the interpretation.

As has been said countless times, this particular rule has been applied consistently as far as we know (and Meersman's tweet doesn't refute this).

The level crossing rule is applied too when they can easily determine who broke it. That the jury chickened out at this year's Paris-Roubaix and didn't kick out the whole peloton doesn't mean no rules should ever be enforced again, does it?

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Too bad they don't apply their precious rules at level crossings where it can actually be life threatening. Consistency is the problem not so much the interpretation.

As has been said countless times, this particular rule has been applied consistently as far as we know (and Meersman's tweet doesn't refute this).

The level crossing rule is applied too when they can easily determine who broke it. That the jury chickened out at this year's Paris-Roubaix and didn't kick out the whole peloton doesn't mean no rules should ever be enforced again, does it?

i mean all rules not just wheel changes. The whole peloton did not cross in front of the train and it was caught on video.

 

[hrotha]

Not all rules are equally straight-forward to enforce. Identifying who exactly crossed when the barriers were down is not comparable to something like this.

Just come out and say you think the rules shouldn't apply to riders who are too important.

 

[Tommy79]

Great point by inner ring that sitting riders down on wet December afternoon and drilling the rules into them would have got much more of a gain than the motor home.

Totally sympathise with people clutching at straws wanting this to go away but Sky were stupid and thems the rules. Always a shame to have factor other than racing influence the race, be it this or Contador's crash.

 

[Mongolian Torque]

The whole thing is dubm...yes DUBM... But rules are rules...

However, it does display the indisputable...Aussies have each other's back no matter what.

I can almost guarantee that the Giro has a new team and it's call Orica Green Sky Edge...
They will band together and go with Aussie rules to lay a pummeling onto who and whatever...

Not particularly a Sky fan, but I do like the spunk of OGE.

 

[veji11]

Re:

Not all rules are equally straight-forward to enforce. Identifying who exactly crossed when the barriers were down is not comparable to something like this.

Just come out and say you think the rules shouldn't apply to riders who are too important.

Exactly, the big difference between time limit rules "hors délais", train crossing rules and this rule is of mass. You can have 50 riders arriving after the time limit or crossing the railroad.. What do you do ? This has a massive impact. In itself the mass is, willingly or not, a criteria. In the Porte rule mass and numbers aren't an issue, it is always and individual case and the ruling has always been as far as we know the same when the infraction was noticed.

 

[TheQuick]

Contador should be punished, he took his helmet of and it's against the rule

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Not all rules are equally straight-forward to enforce. Identifying who exactly crossed when the barriers were down is not comparable to something like this.

Just come out and say you think the rules shouldn't apply to riders who are too important.

I agree with the Porte time penalty, but I also think every single rider who could be identified for that crossing should have been DQ'd and in future the UCI should post commisaires at level crossing to do this. That's a different thread though.

General point:

Porte Broke a rule, he got penalised. that's life. It doesn't matter if it's been enforced in every single occurance. If someone is caught they suffer, that's the ways rules and laws work in every walk of life.

 

[Kender]

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

Please explain why the wording for road cycling would allow a cyclist to remove their helmet. The wording is very clear, a helmet must be worn. Removing it means it is not being worn, ergo, the rider should be penalised surely?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

Please explain why the wording for road cycling would allow a cyclist to remove their helmet. The wording is very clear, a helmet must be worn. Removing it means it is not being worn, ergo, the rider should be penalised surely?

The point here is that as it's worded differently, there is obviously a difference in the regulations. In BMX etc a helmet must be worn at all times.

 

[sienna]

If rules are always applied without fear or favour, why don't they burn all the riders who broke the rules at the railway crossing at Roubaix?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

If rules are always applied without fear or favour, why don't they burn all the riders who broke the rules at the railway crossing at Roubaix?

Because that was a different jury

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

We have to be thankful this incident happened. It's proving highly educational, with some posters now seemingly learning for the first time that outside mathematics and logic, rules are always ambiguous and can only be enforced with additional information that comes from elsewhere, such as common sense, precedent, the outcome of a deliberation with others, etc.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

Please explain why the wording for road cycling would allow a cyclist to remove their helmet. The wording is very clear, a helmet must be worn. Removing it means it is not being worn, ergo, the rider should be penalised surely?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're just trying to yank someones chain.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

Please explain why the wording for road cycling would allow a cyclist to remove their helmet. The wording is very clear, a helmet must be worn. Removing it means it is not being worn, ergo, the rider should be penalised surely?

The point here is that as it's worded differently, there is obviously a difference in the regulations. In BMX etc a helmet must be worn at all times.

I'm waiting for your interpretation of the wording, that's all. The rules are obviously different, and seem to be more about covering training etc. for off road stuff, but the road rules still seem to imply that a helmet must be worn at all times. Do you agree with that? Honest question.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

bertie took his helmet off again today. he handed it to someone else so he was no longer in possession of it at all.
It occurred centre screen for a reasonable period of time in the tv coverage.

So will the UCI step in and penalise him this time?

would make for interesting viewing with both him and porte needing to make time on aru

Penalty for removal of helmet is DQ, so he'd be gone if they enforced it. The rule is there to stop them discarding helmets for the final climb of the day, a common practice a while ago, but I do agree the way it is worded seems to imply he should be gone...

It's worded strangely, but in the full regulations there is a clear distinction between road cycling and other disciplines. For the other disciplines, it says:
Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training
sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX,
para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.

For road cycling:
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn.

Please explain why the wording for road cycling would allow a cyclist to remove their helmet. The wording is very clear, a helmet must be worn. Removing it means it is not being worn, ergo, the rider should be penalised surely?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're just trying to yank someones chain.

Nope. That's the way I read it. It's stupid and I'd be extremely annoyed if anyone got penalised for removing their helmet for a short period to adjust, replace, remove cap etc. but that's the way the rule is written.

I'm not campaigning for Contador to be DQ'd, just pointing out that this rule seems to suggest he should be and needs sorting out.

 

[Kender]

well they have made it a point that porte had to be penalized and they had no choice

it's a shame the fans have been robbed of a 3 way fight

 

[sienna]

Re: Re:

If rules are always applied without fear or favour, why don't they burn all the riders who broke the rules at the railway crossing at Roubaix?

Because that was a different jury

Aren't these races all under the UCI umbrella?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

If rules are always applied without fear or favour, why don't they burn all the riders who broke the rules at the railway crossing at Roubaix?

Because that was a different jury

Aren't these races all under the UCI umbrella?

Yes, but the head of the jury at the Giro is particularly strict.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Re: Re:

If rules are always applied without fear or favour, why don't they burn all the riders who broke the rules at the railway crossing at Roubaix?

Because that was a different jury

Aren't these races all under the UCI umbrella?

Yes, but the head of the jury at the Giro is particularly strict.

Not really