Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

It doesn't matter how you read it, to be honest. Everyone in the sport understands the rule means you can't ride without a helmet, and to do so is a DQ.

Bringing it up in this thread is a bit silly. Are we now going to comb over every UCI rule for ambiguous language so we can feel better that Porte and Clark *** up and got penalized?

 

[richwagmn]

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

Saw that too. Seen other riders do it too in the past (adjustments, changing helmets). Open to interpretation.

That said, I think the no mechanical help from other teams is a good rule.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

It doesn't matter how you read it, to be honest. Everyone in the sport understands the rule means you can't ride without a helmet, and to do so is a DQ.

Bringing it up in this thread is a bit silly. Are we now going to comb over every UCI rule for ambiguous language so we can feel better that Porte and Clark **** up and got penalized?

I didn't bring it up, someone else did and I responded as they had got the penalty wrong. Then as usual you get Fantadors jumping all over any comment that might be seen as negative towards their rider, but not actually giving an opinion in this case so I just asked what she thought. Then you jumped in, in a huff and got all stroppy about me interpreting a rule that I think is stupidly worded in the first place and pointed out that in my very first response. The two of you have caused this discussion, don't try and blame me for either bringing it up or prolonging it. My post could easily have been ignored by both of you or left to kender to respond to. If you don't want to discuss something then don't involve yourself.


Oh, the only feelings I have over the penalty is it was correct. I have no idea where you have gotten the impression I feel bad about it.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

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.

It doesn't matter how you read it, to be honest. Everyone in the sport understands the rule means you can't ride without a helmet, and to do so is a DQ.

Bringing it up in this thread is a bit silly. Are we now going to comb over every UCI rule for ambiguous language so we can feel better that Porte and Clark **** up and got penalized?

I didn't bring it up, someone else did and I responded as they had got the penalty wrong. Then as usual you get Fantadors jumping all over any comment that might be seen as negative towards their rider, but not actually giving an opinion in this case so I just asked what she thought. Then you jumped in, in a huff and got all stroppy about me interpreting a rule that I think is stupidly worded in the first place and pointed out that in my very first response. The two of you have caused this discussion, don't try and blame me for either bringing it up or prolonging it. My post could easily have been ignored by both of you or left to kender to respond to. If you don't want to discuss something then don't involve yourself.


Oh, the only feelings I have over the penalty is it was correct. I have no idea where you have gotten the impression I feel bad about it.

Precedent has been established whereupon a rider can adjust his helmet. Adjusting your helmet then, does not mean, then, that you have stopped "wearing it" even when it's not on your head. You could say, if you want to quibble about the wording, that it's not off your person. This rule has been consistently applied to mean as much. Applying it differently in one instances, without the UCI or someone stating previously that the interpretation has been changed, would actually be grossly unfair.

A much more problematic rule, again, would be the one about riders pushing riders. It is a clear DQ, but it is, to my knowledge, never enforced.I guess you could say it has been nullified by precedent in a way as to make it almost unenforceable.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

It doesn't matter how you read it, to be honest. Everyone in the sport understands the rule means you can't ride without a helmet, and to do so is a DQ.

Bringing it up in this thread is a bit silly. Are we now going to comb over every UCI rule for ambiguous language so we can feel better that Porte and Clark **** up and got penalized?

I didn't bring it up, someone else did and I responded as they had got the penalty wrong. Then as usual you get Fantadors jumping all over any comment that might be seen as negative towards their rider, but not actually giving an opinion in this case so I just asked what she thought. Then you jumped in, in a huff and got all stroppy about me interpreting a rule that I think is stupidly worded in the first place and pointed out that in my very first response. The two of you have caused this discussion, don't try and blame me for either bringing it up or prolonging it. My post could easily have been ignored by both of you or left to kender to respond to. If you don't want to discuss something then don't involve yourself.


Oh, the only feelings I have over the penalty is it was correct. I have no idea where you have gotten the impression I feel bad about it.

Precedent has been established whereupon a rider can adjust his helmet. Adjusting your helmet then, does not mean, then, that you have stopped "wearing it" even when it's not on your head. You could say, if you want to quibble about the wording, that it's not off your person. This rule has been consistently applied to mean as much. Applying it differently in one instances, without the UCI or someone stating previously that the interpretation has been changed, would actually be grossly unfair.

A much more problematic rule, again, would be the one about riders pushing riders. It is a clear DQ, but it is, to my knowledge, never enforced.I guess you could say it has been nullified by precedent in a way as to make it almost unenforceable.

Thanks, makes perfect sense and is pretty much how I feel about it. They should reword it to reflect as much though and hopefully this incident might start that process. Doubt it though.

The pushing rule is another one that needs sorting out, it seems really silly to be honest.

 

[Miburo]

Kingboonen, that's how law works aswell.

A lot of times it's worded very stange, hence the judge have to interpret it according to the original intention of the lawmakers.

Here it's clear what the intention was and contador adjusting it, is obviously not part of that.

I'm surprised that respected channels like sporza report it this way, I can see why skyboys do it. But sporza? That's just sad.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Danish journalist Rasmus Staghoj sending out some mysterious tweets about the race jury and helmets...........

 

[hrotha]

While I agree with King Boonen's post 100%, I also think they should change that rule and only allow removing your helmet (even to adjust it) while stationary. I would basically ban any contact between car and rider/bike, too. So many rules I would change.

The one about mechanical assistance from other teams would remain as it is though.

 

[PghCyclist]

Re: Re:

Collusion between 2 Australians

It really is as simple as this. The "spirit of the law" is to avoid precisely this thing.

I still find it rather hard to understand what particular damage could be caused by "this thing". Compared to benefits the race could get from it sport-wise (i.e. letting the sport decide the result, not punctures).

Don't get me wrong - the penalty was just, because the rule was broken. I question reasons for existence for such a rule.

I had another thought to this (and I'm probably completely off base...)

But almost all riders probably don't have a mechanics license. Something like a wheel change is simple enough, but what if it had resulted in a serious crash shortly afterwards due follow-up mechanical? A rule like this keeps the UCI from being liable as a third party for enabling such a things to occur...

The people who make the rules are both interested in maintaining the spirit of competition as well as protecting themselves from liability.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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

Where is this certainty that Porte would have been part of a fight coming from

You may remember Porte was supposed to lead the Giro last year. He could have been the favourite as well considering how easy he was able to drop Quintana on Bonsacre.

In the end Porte couldn't even get on any basic form and had to quit the race. Sky have never been on the podium of the Giro, but have made the podium of the Vuelta and Tour 3 times. Wiggins had the most dominant season in decades in 2012 and yet a year later in the Giro couldn't keep up on the flat.

There is no guarantee at all Porte was going to keep up with Contador or Aru or whoever else, in the mountains.

 

[willbick]

Re: Re:

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

Where is this certainty that Porte would have been part of a fight coming from

You may remember Porte was supposed to lead the Giro last year. He could have been the favourite as well considering how easy he was able to drop Quintana on Bonsacre.

In the end Porte couldn't even get on any basic form and had to quit the race. Sky have never been on the podium of the Giro, but have made the podium of the Vuelta and Tour 3 times. Wiggins had the most dominant season in decades in 2012 and yet a year later in the Giro couldn't keep up on the flat.

There is no guarantee at all Porte was going to keep up with Contador or Aru or whoever else, in the mountains.

Nothing is guaranteed but it was highly likely going on Porte's form this season and the climbs so far in this Giro

 

[deValtos]

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

Basically the UCI need to rewrite a lot of their rules as a ton of them are unclear, though as some people have pointed out that could be intentional so that they can apply the rule when they see fit. I think clarity would certainly help though. Even the rule Porte came afoul of can be interpreted in a couple of ways, one of which should they have interpreted it differently would've only levied the penalty at Clarke.

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

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

Where is this certainty that Porte would have been part of a fight coming from

You may remember Porte was supposed to lead the Giro last year. He could have been the favourite as well considering how easy he was able to drop Quintana on Bonsacre.

In the end Porte couldn't even get on any basic form and had to quit the race. Sky have never been on the podium of the Giro, but have made the podium of the Vuelta and Tour 3 times. Wiggins had the most dominant season in decades in 2012 and yet a year later in the Giro couldn't keep up on the flat.

There is no guarantee at all Porte was going to keep up with Contador or Aru or whoever else, in the mountains.

Nothing is guaranteed but it was highly likely going on Porte's form this season and the climbs so far in this Giro

Porte's form was overrated.

No decent competition in trentino and PN.

And catalunya wasn't a challenging parcours, furthermore contador would have won that race if he played his cards differently.

 

[Andreasjs]

Re:

These are the rules, but IMO without no possible interpretation or exceptions according the circunstances, it is an unfair rule.

IMO in the case of a rider has any problem that make you yes or yes losed time just for bad luck, and there is not self fault, the time losed in GC should be the half or even the third part, in order to dont change the bahaviuor of the rider, and to dont give him advantage, but dont give so many influence to the luck, becouse for me cycling shouldn`t be poker. Luck would be always a factor, but not so important.

That is interesting. So a rider who crashes because a rider, a spectator or another external factor causes the crash and looses minutes either in that stage or future stages due to the injuries, should he have his timeloss eliminated?

 

[TheQuick]

Mauri Vegni said yesterday "If we do not enforce the rules, so we dilute the sport of cycling and the Giro credibility ". Exciting to see if they mean the same today.

 

[barmaher]

He took his helmet off to adjust the gear he was wearing underneath his helmet.

Nothing to see here.

 

[Andreasjs]

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.

Its actually almost funny. This is the team who is going on and on about "we were the first ones, now everyone are doing it" and their marginal gain motor home. Then they do a complete f***-up on something relative basic.

 

[damian13ster]

Re:

He took his helmet off to adjust the gear he was wearing underneath his helmet.

Nothing to see here.

Nobody questions his motivation, but the wording of the quoted rule is quite clear. You take your helmet off- DQ.
Of course it would be idiotic if it happened (it won't) but the same could be said about the penalty yesterday, which -according to race officials- they could do nothing about because the rule is clearly worded, which is the same case with the helmet one
Didn't see any sub-point saying that it can be done under some circumstances. You are more likely to fall while readjusting and having your helmet off so that actually increases the risk.

 

[joe_papp]

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)...

Even at the lowly 2.2 level they enforce this rule. When Perez was leading Vuelta a Cuba and punctured on final stage when we were still pissing around, one of the Cuba B riders stopped to offer him his wheel. I was stopped taking a piss so I got to watch the whole thing, and Fraysse even tooks a few pics (of the mechanical service, not me pissing), and I could listen and hear w/ my own ears to what was being said, including by the chief commissaire from Argentina who told the Cuba-B why he couldn't give Perez the wheel and what the penalty would be.

So Perez waits for service from the team car and eventually regains the field. But he'd been stuck w/ a 2min penalty if he'd acceded to the youngster's bleating desire to help the rey.

 

[MotorRouleur]

DSQ the maglia rosa for brief removal & replace helmet at slow speed? What advantage did he gain? If you have that idea in your head - and really believe it - know that it's not only us that knows your an idiot, the entire peloton does too.

Sky took a calculated risk in a frantic final; grab a non-Sky wheel and pay the 2 minute penalty, instead of waiting for a team car or neutral support and losing even more time. Some would say, it's the cost of doing business. Given the result, it's now seen as a clumsy gamble.

What Sky have been doing since is trying to deflect attention away from a simple judgment that went wrong. And they are weak cowards for finger-pointing (principles, context, equity, etc.) Who's final call was it? Porte? Eisel? Brailsford? My guess is Cioni. La furba.

 

[damian13ster]

Re: Re:

He took his helmet off to adjust the gear he was wearing underneath his helmet.

Nothing to see here.

Nobody questions his motivation, but the wording of the quoted rule is quite clear. You take your helmet off- DQ.
Of course it would be idiotic if it happened (it won't) but the same could be said about the penalty yesterday, which -according to race officials- they could do nothing about because the rule is clearly worded, which is the same case with the helmet one
Didn't see any sub-point saying that it can be done under some circumstances. You are more likely to fall while readjusting and having your helmet off so that actually increases the risk.

I am going to quote my response again because you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension. Maybe if you read it second time something will sink in. If not, then just read once more....

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Collusion between 2 Australians

It really is as simple as this. The "spirit of the law" is to avoid precisely this thing.

I still find it rather hard to understand what particular damage could be caused by "this thing". Compared to benefits the race could get from it sport-wise (i.e. letting the sport decide the result, not punctures).

Don't get me wrong - the penalty was just, because the rule was broken. I question reasons for existence for such a rule.

Don't you think that this would give an unfair advantage to the nations that have such numerical superiority in the peloton over others countries? Any time a Frenchman or Spaniard or Australian has a flat there is a much higher chance that one of his countryman would be close by to offer assistance. How is that letting the sport decide the result?

 

[nayr497]

This is getting absurd. Take ice hockey. The refs don't make all the right calls. They miss penalties, they call some that shouldn't have been called. All of them influence the game, but they only rarely win/lose a game. A missed penalty when a game winning goal is scored.

In this case, Porte broke a rule and was caught. He was penalized. Yes, their are other rules that are broken and not penalized. You can go on and on about how Richie was done wrong, but he broke a rule and got caught. It wasn't on the final stage. He has plenty of racing to make up for it. If he doesn't, don't blame the UCI. That's as babyish as a guy claiming after the game that the ref lost it for him. F off.

I can't believe the outrage from other racers. The rules are the rules. This is like being pissed when you get a speeding ticket. Yeah, you aren't always penalized when you break the speed limit, but sometimes you are.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

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

Where is this certainty that Porte would have been part of a fight coming from

You may remember Porte was supposed to lead the Giro last year. He could have been the favourite as well considering how easy he was able to drop Quintana on Bonsacre.

In the end Porte couldn't even get on any basic form and had to quit the race. Sky have never been on the podium of the Giro, but have made the podium of the Vuelta and Tour 3 times. Wiggins had the most dominant season in decades in 2012 and yet a year later in the Giro couldn't keep up on the flat.

There is no guarantee at all Porte was going to keep up with Contador or Aru or whoever else, in the mountains.

Uran in 2013 was 2nd behind Nibbles.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Collusion between 2 Australians

It really is as simple as this. The "spirit of the law" is to avoid precisely this thing.

I still find it rather hard to understand what particular damage could be caused by "this thing". Compared to benefits the race could get from it sport-wise (i.e. letting the sport decide the result, not punctures).

Don't get me wrong - the penalty was just, because the rule was broken. I question reasons for existence for such a rule.

Don't you think that this would give an unfair advantage to the nations that have such numerical superiority in the peloton over others countries? Any time a Frenchman or Spaniard or Australian has a flat there is a much higher chance that one of his countryman would be close by to offer assistance. How is that letting the sport decide the result?

Another reason was stated by somebody else in this forum. The example was that this would have been a big difference had it happened in the mountains when few seconds can turn into minutes. That's one of the reasons of having a strong team. If you have a strong team a teammate can give him his bike or wheel on a hard climb. So this rule is important and needs to be enforced.