Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[Libertine Seguros]

Does it not strike us as a pretty terrible indictment of modern cycling that many who are in support of Porte believe we have been "robbed" of a three way battle because of a 2 minute penalty? 2 minutes is nothing. It's easily recoverable. There's a 60km time trial and at least three high mountain stages to come.

Or do none of you believe in Porte? Was his strategy really going to be to Leipheimer his way to glory? Does he really have no backup option when he loses time? He's been winning mountain stages on the road this season, not just doing the Indurain template. Do the GC guys really need to ride in formation and only feud over occasional seconds so much so that 2 minutes is considered an unrecoverable time loss?

Contador, Heras, Landis, Basso, Schleck and Sella all disagree.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

Does it not strike us as a pretty terrible indictment of modern cycling that many who are in support of Porte believe we have been "robbed" of a three way battle because of a 2 minute penalty? 2 minutes is nothing. It's easily recoverable. There's a 60km time trial and at least three high mountain stages to come.

Or do none of you believe in Porte? Was his strategy really going to be to Leipheimer his way to glory? Does he really have no backup option when he loses time? He's been winning mountain stages on the road this season, not just doing the Indurain template. Do the GC guys really need to ride in formation and only feud over occasional seconds so much so that 2 minutes is considered an unrecoverable time loss?

Contador, Heras, Landis, Basso, Schleck and Sella all disagree.

Compared to Aru and Contador, Porte was simply following wheels leading up to his mishap. Where Aru and Contador put in digs on occasion to distant their rivals, Porte had been content to simply respond to attacks, giving the impression that he was either just saving his energies till the 3rd week, to then become aggressive and/or he was banking on his belief that his superiority versus the clock would distance him from his gc opponents, so there was no need to gain time before that. Even with the disappointing Sky performance in the ttt, there still was no sense of urgency in his riding.

 

[willbick]

I bet the authorities are praying Porte doesnt lose the final GC by less than 2 mins!!

 

[Angliru]

Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

I don't get how the puncture was "unfair" as if some injustice was done to him by him getting the puncture. It is part of the sport. It happens to everyone.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

But if he took his teammate's wheel, he'd have had one fewer chase. The rule that Richie fell foul of is an anti-collusion rule. Yes, in the actual circumstance it didn't make a huge difference, but in a mountain stage it could make a huge difference if a rider has a friend nearby willing to offer a wheel so they don't have to wait for the car/teammate/neutral service car. And then the GC can become like a popularity contest.

The rule is there, has been applied similarly in other circumstances (Shpilevsky, Sicard - in the former case it even settled the GC) and was absolutely clearly broken. At the moment the minimum penalty for a first offence of this rule is 2'00 time penalty. Maybe they'll review that. But rules can't apply retroactively. Porte and Clarke broke the rules, and were given the penalty for that infringement. Difficult for them to complain, really.

You argue it shows the more sporting side of cycling... but again, if that was a Movistar guy giving Contador his wheel after he punctures after being distanced in a mountain stage, where's the indignation? The rule is there on the premise that Simon Clarke would not have sat up and offered his wheel to every rider in the péloton, therefore it is unfair that Porte should benefit where others can't. And while it may be seen as sporting in this set of circumstances, in another set of circumstances the very same action may be seen as the very opposite of sporting. The net result of that being that it is banned.

We don't hear about these rules often because 99% of the time we don't need to, as teammates are present, the only riders needing to benefit like that are away from the cameras as they're not relevant to the race at the time, and riders are professionals and work for their own team the majority of the team, and any assistance they give to others is in-race, not mechanical.

 

[PeterB]

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.

Personally, I would prefer that punctures have as little impact on overall result as possible. Obviously, by enabling yet another method of getting new wheel from rider of another team (besides existing legal methods including a teammate, team car, team staff standing by the roadside, or neutral support; not sure about another team's car), you would decrease the likelihood that a puncture has substantial impact on result. Notwithstanding whether a rider benefits from this in a situation in which he would otherwise lose seconds, or minutes - it would still be a step ahead in terms of reducing effect on results.

The other effect Angliru mentioned that a rider with less "friends" in the peloton would benefit from discarding of the rule less than another one with more riders willing to sacrifice a wheel is theoretical in my opinion, and the actual negative impact it could have would be just minor, compared to potentially more substantial positive effect described above.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

[
Personally, I would prefer that punctures have as little impact on overall result as possible. Obviously, by enabling yet another method of getting new wheel from rider of another team (besides existing legal methods including a teammate, team car, team staff standing by the roadside, or neutral support; not sure about another team's car), you would decrease the likelihood that a puncture has substantial impact on result. Notwithstanding whether a rider benefits from this in a situation in which he would otherwise lose seconds, or minutes - it would still be a step ahead in terms of reducing effect on results.

The other effect Angliru mentioned that a rider with less "friends" in the peloton would benefit from discarding of the rule less than another one with more riders willing to sacrifice a wheel is theoretical in my opinion, and the actual negative impact it could have would be just minor, compared to potentially more substantial positive effect described above.

At which point somebody like Tinkoff waves a bunch of money at, say, Savio, and so Androni basically become Tinkoff B, servicing Contador and pacing him back to the bunch consistently allowing Saxo domestiques to save energy. Aru drops an isolated Contador with an attack from the heads of state group and a bunch of Androni guys in the break sit up and stay by their bikes waiting for Contador so they can pace him back to Aru, and the GC is settled in favour of the Spaniard, because he effectively had 17 domestiques instead of 8.

Can't help but think people would be a bit pissed.

 

[Orbit501]

Re: Re:

I for one am glad that this nationalistic BS isn't allowed. Cycling is a team sport. As in, your commercial team, not the team of your countrymen or your buddies.

Damn right. I'm glad they followed the rules. If an italian helped Aru in the same manner, the same people who are complaining now, would be outraged.

I mean, it's in the rules, there's a clear precedent, and people are somehow complaining that it's unfair or that the Italians are out to get an Italian winner? Get a grip.

Especially considering there can't be any italians in the jury because this race is in italy, and the organizers can't do anything about the race jury's decision.

But those are facts, and people here don't like facts, they just like to get angry

I totally agree with all of the above. Would have opened up a massive can of worms if the rules weren't enforced in this incidence. Entirely the correct decision IMHO.

 

[Orbit501]

Re:

Look, collusion happens. A lot. People make alliances in races, and friendships are forged by riders across teams. Tiralongo and Contador is only one example. Something like this is one of the only ways they're actively able to enforce limitations on it. After all, Tiralongo could argue (implausibly) that he would beat Contador in a sprint and the break needed extra legs, therefore it's in his interest to carry him to the front and work together. Unrealistic, sure, but feasible.

If back then Contador had punctured, Tira had given up his wheel and Contador had rode off into the sunset... how many of you would have been irate if Alberto HADN'T been given the two minutes? Part of it is that this was an expected GC-irrelevant stage, so it doesn't seem like anything major has happened and it's just a nice gesture from Clarke rather than any real collusion. But the rule is there to prevent this kind of assistance affecting the GC. Ironically, the subsequent application of the rule has affected the GC more than the assistance did.

Good post. Excellent points very well made.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

Why did he take the OGE rider's wheel instead of his own teammate's? Because, as you said, it would save him time. As such, he benefitted from the violation, and got penalized.

Is this really that complicated? Do the "fair play" (to regurgitate the Brailsford argument that so many have picked up) advocates think it's fair that he save time by doing something no other rider is allowed to do? I don't.

It was a nice gesture by Clark. It was also clearly against the rules and clearly gave Porte an advantage he didn't deserve.

Or do folks think that making up arbitrary penalties along the lines of "whatever feels right" to the organization at the time is the way to go? I don't. The penalty is the penalty and for good reason.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I for one am glad that this nationalistic BS isn't allowed. Cycling is a team sport. As in, your commercial team, not the team of your countrymen or your buddies.

Damn right. I'm glad they followed the rules. If an italian helped Aru in the same manner, the same people who are complaining now, would be outraged.

I mean, it's in the rules, there's a clear precedent, and people are somehow complaining that it's unfair or that the Italians are out to get an Italian winner? Get a grip.

Especially considering there can't be any italians in the jury because this race is in italy, and the organizers can't do anything about the race jury's decision.

But those are facts, and people here don't like facts, they just like to get angry

I totally agree with all of the above. Would have opened up a massive can of worms if the rules weren't enforced in this incidence. Entirely the correct decision IMHO.

I'll add my +1 to this post, and simply ask those advocating for collusion amongst the Aussies, if the violators were Spaniards and the beneficiary was Contador, would you feel the same about the rule?

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re: Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

I don't get how the puncture was "unfair" as if some injustice was done to him by him getting the puncture. It is part of the sport. It happens to everyone.

Then why not give Contador the actual time when he crossed the line during his crash.Crashes also happen to everyone. Infact more people have crashed than punctured in this Giro

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re: Re:

Look, collusion happens. A lot. People make alliances in races, and friendships are forged by riders across teams. Tiralongo and Contador is only one example. Something like this is one of the only ways they're actively able to enforce limitations on it. After all, Tiralongo could argue (implausibly) that he would beat Contador in a sprint and the break needed extra legs, therefore it's in his interest to carry him to the front and work together. Unrealistic, sure, but feasible.

If back then Contador had punctured, Tira had given up his wheel and Contador had rode off into the sunset... how many of you would have been irate if Alberto HADN'T been given the two minutes? Part of it is that this was an expected GC-irrelevant stage, so it doesn't seem like anything major has happened and it's just a nice gesture from Clarke rather than any real collusion. But the rule is there to prevent this kind of assistance affecting the GC. Ironically, the subsequent application of the rule has affected the GC more than the assistance did.

Good post. Excellent points very well made.

I have a different point of view. Tiralongo would not have given the wheel as Contador's team car was right behind him but he would have rather waited for him. It would be foolish to deprive Contador of Tira's assistance in pulling where the advantage would be much greater than give up the wheel and allow Conatdor to ride alone

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re: Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

Why did he take the OGE rider's wheel instead of his own teammate's? Because, as you said, it would save him time. As such, he benefitted from the violation, and got penalized.

Is this really that complicated? Do the "fair play" (to regurgitate the Brailsford argument that so many have picked up) advocates think it's fair that he save time by doing something no other rider is allowed to do? I don't.

It was a nice gesture by Clark. It was also clearly against the rules and clearly gave Porte an advantage he didn't deserve.

Or do folks think that making up arbitrary penalties along the lines of "whatever feels right" to the organization at the time is the way to go? I don't. The penalty is the penalty and for good reason.

I still donot understand why you guys are saying benefit/advantage. The choice is between less loss or more loss of time. The rider who has crashed or punctured has to be pulled at a much greater speed/effort to rejoin the front group which sometimes is impossible . Precious energy reserves are burnt which affect the rider in the long term.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Re:

I bet the authorities are praying Porte doesnt lose the final GC by less than 2 mins!!

Media supportive of the Aussie contingent and/or Sky would no doubt pick up on this and blather away if it occurs, that scenario is irrelevant for practical purposes, as the other GC contenders will not necessarily race against Porte and his cumulative GC time in the same fashion they would if he were 2 minutes closer in the standings. The status quo has already been altered, and the top GC candidates will measure out their efforts versus one another, not necessarily against Porte unless he can pull himself back up into striking range.

 

[cellardoor]

Re: Re:

[
Personally, I would prefer that punctures have as little impact on overall result as possible. Obviously, by enabling yet another method of getting new wheel from rider of another team (besides existing legal methods including a teammate, team car, team staff standing by the roadside, or neutral support; not sure about another team's car), you would decrease the likelihood that a puncture has substantial impact on result. Notwithstanding whether a rider benefits from this in a situation in which he would otherwise lose seconds, or minutes - it would still be a step ahead in terms of reducing effect on results.

The other effect Angliru mentioned that a rider with less "friends" in the peloton would benefit from discarding of the rule less than another one with more riders willing to sacrifice a wheel is theoretical in my opinion, and the actual negative impact it could have would be just minor, compared to potentially more substantial positive effect described above.

At which point somebody like Tinkoff waves a bunch of money at, say, Savio, and so Androni basically become Tinkoff B, servicing Contador and pacing him back to the bunch consistently allowing Saxo domestiques to save energy. Aru drops an isolated Contador with an attack from the heads of state group and a bunch of Androni guys in the break sit up and stay by their bikes waiting for Contador so they can pace him back to Aru, and the GC is settled in favour of the Spaniard, because he effectively had 17 domestiques instead of 8.

Can't help but think people would be a bit pissed.

This effectively did happen with Savoldelli and Lotto and the rule wasn't applied. I don't think it's a great example of what would happen without the rule as it's pretty much impossible to prove that waiting for/pacing somebody was to assist someone on another team and not simply that they got dropped from the break and then got a second wind.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I still donot understand why you guys are saying benefit/advantage. The choice is between less loss or more loss of time. The rider who has crashed or punctured has to be pulled at a much greater speed/effort to rejoin the front group which sometimes is impossible . Precious energy reserves are burnt which affect the rider in the long term.

Benefits:

1. Less time taken to change wheel
2. Extra teammate to pull him back to the group (having not given a wheel)

In other words, if Porte had taken his own teammate's wheel, he'd have had to have waited longer to get it and would have had one less teammate to pull him back to the group. Does that make sense?

Both are clear, tangible time benefits. As such, there is a penalty for taking a wheel (or bike) from a rider on another team.

You can argue that you don't like the 2 minute penalty and that it should be changed in the future, but there was no option (nor should there be) for that penalty to be adjusted on the fly during this race. If you think about all the possible scenarios where a rider might benefit (say in the mountains) you have to realize that 2 mins isn't particularly strong.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

At which point somebody like Tinkoff waves a bunch of money at, say, Savio, and so Androni basically become Tinkoff B, servicing Contador and pacing him back to the bunch consistently allowing Saxo domestiques to save energy. Aru drops an isolated Contador with an attack from the heads of state group and a bunch of Androni guys in the break sit up and stay by their bikes waiting for Contador so they can pace him back to Aru, and the GC is settled in favour of the Spaniard, because he effectively had 17 domestiques instead of 8.

Can't help but think people would be a bit pissed.

Aren't these two different things? It has been claimed before on this thread that pacing by another team can not be so easily penalised by the jury, because that team can always claim they did it for other reasons, not to help the rider in question (e.g. Oss & Sagan, Tiralongo & Contador, even some Belgian CT guy helping Lotto chase down OPQS the other year). So this behaviour happens already and is not punished even if the no-service rule exists. If no-service rule is abolished, would this open some new opportunity to ask another team to help chasing? I don't think so. Tinkoff can do what you suggest right tomorrow and if they are careful enough (and not share any wheels, only food and drink), they are safe...

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

I don't get how the puncture was "unfair" as if some injustice was done to him by him getting the puncture. It is part of the sport. It happens to everyone.

Then why not give Contador the actual time when he crossed the line during his crash.Crashes also happen to everyone. Infact more people have crashed than punctured in this Giro

There is a clear rule about crashes in last 3km, and there is also a clear rule about taking mechanical help from other teams. What of this you didn't understand?

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

The one question that people have to ask is "what is ultimate purpose of the rules"
The answer being Safety and Fairness.
Crashes and Mechanicals are part of the sport but are considered unfortunate( I have never heard of anybody gaining anything due to mechanicals). There are rules like the 3 km rule designed to reduce crashes and give fair time to everybody.
Therefore it is utter stupidity to apply such a punishment of 2 min docking to Porte when he has clearly lost 47s already and not gained anything. 2min is an arbitrary time penalty. Assuming he took his teammates wheel, he would have lost additional ~10-15 s. That would be the correct penalty to be given if at all. What was important was that UCI could have shown the more sporting side of cycling but all it encourages is that people need to be more selfish and look into their own interests. IMO the puncture was unfortunate and unfair for Porte and the UCI rubbed salt into wounds by making it into complete disaster.

Nope. The reason games have rules is that you can't have a game without rules. It's an integral part of something being a game. "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." -Salen & Zimmerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game). Rules can be codified or they can follow from precedent. In this case a codified rule was enforced according to precedent. There is no need to discuss interpretation as there was really no room for ambiguity.

And bunch of (seeming mainly Australians and Sky) fans are like what do you mean "en passant". You didn't earn that pawn. It wasn't there. You're ruining the game I'm supposed to win. As impartial observers who only want whats best for "the game", we demand that you give us more pawns. Like, right now. Fairness can't be achieved by following set rules according to defined procedures, but by following our enlightened and absolutely objective judgments on what's right and what's wrong. So give us more pawns, if you have any sense of "fairness" or decency or whatever. And we all laughed. But now it's been a few days, and it's getting a little annoying. If you want to play but you can't follow rules yet, then go draw with your crayons.

 

[JRanton]

Re:

No one has provided even one example of a wheel given by a different team in a WT race Not being enforced. It seems it is Always enforced. Time to move on.

Garmin mechanics gave Geraint Thomas mechanical assistance at Flanders a couple of years ago. There is a picture on Twitter. Sky gave Meersman a wheel in this Giro last week. Do we actually know if that breaches rules or is it simply the riders themselves who aren't allowed to give assistance to a rider from another team?

 

[JRanton]

Re:

Unfortunate, stupid and ultimately completely avoidable is my take on the situation. Couple of questions ..

1) Where the hell was the Sky car? Did Porte stop in the left side of the road and they passed him? (mistake #1)

2) When he finally reconnected with the team, he was on the last wheel and almost got dropped because the others where drafting behind the cars. Should've been in front! Clearly that took the wind out of him and he had nothing in the end. (mistake #2)

3) Why did the caravan stop? Normally a fast bikechange would keep you in the caravan, and he should've lost max 20s. Took them forever to start passing him, compounding the misfortune.

Not a Richie fan here, but he is on my fantasy team though. Sky have noone but themselves to blame imo.
Oh, and on topic. What's the organizers supposed to do? A rider breaks the rules, and then posts the pics of the deed on twitter for all to see. Sad situation, but again it should never have gotten to that point.

Porte's explanation is that he went left on a roundabout and his teammates when right (which happens a lot, especially in the final of a sprint stage). He then punctured at the roundabout which almost saw him crash and bring down Clarke. That incident caused Clarke to slow down and he presumably then offered Porte the spare wheel. In that context, with the peloton travelling at a frantic pace, you can see how it all happened and the errors made by Sky and Porte are much more understandable.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

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.

The sanction for pushing a member of another team in a stage race is 200CHF + 10-second penalty.

DQ only applies to a second offence or on final stage.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

At which point somebody like Tinkoff waves a bunch of money at, say, Savio, and so Androni basically become Tinkoff B, servicing Contador and pacing him back to the bunch consistently allowing Saxo domestiques to save energy. Aru drops an isolated Contador with an attack from the heads of state group and a bunch of Androni guys in the break sit up and stay by their bikes waiting for Contador so they can pace him back to Aru, and the GC is settled in favour of the Spaniard, because he effectively had 17 domestiques instead of 8.

Can't help but think people would be a bit pissed.

Aren't these two different things? It has been claimed before on this thread that pacing by another team can not be so easily penalised by the jury, because that team can always claim they did it for other reasons, not to help the rider in question (e.g. Oss & Sagan, Tiralongo & Contador, even some Belgian CT guy helping Lotto chase down OPQS the other year). So this behaviour happens already and is not punished even if the no-service rule exists. If no-service rule is abolished, would this open some new opportunity to ask another team to help chasing? I don't think so. Tinkoff can do what you suggest right tomorrow and if they are careful enough (and not share any wheels, only food and drink), they are safe...

Hence why I specified them sitting up and staying by their bikes rather than just working with Contador when he makes it to their group. If they break up the rhythm of their group and Contador makes the junction then they ride for him, then there's nothing punishable, but if they actually sit up and wait for him like the Liberty Seguros domestiques did for Heras then that IS against the rules and can be penalized.