Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[fatsprintking]

Re: Re:

Back in 2002 Tour Down Under, when Michael Rogers accepted a bike from a spectator after an incident with one of the race motorcycles, the act was celebrated as a spontaneous reaction by both rider and spectator - it garnered a lot of positive media coverage within both the cycling and mainstream press.
There was a bit of creative interpretation and explanation of the rules by the officials ("taking" being essentially defined as "stealing" so "borrowing" being ok!)
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features/tdu02c40.shtml
Being an official is a tough gig at any level of the sport, and like any other group there is going to be variation in the ability to think creatively. But creativity has always been an endearing part of the sport.
The more I think about why I personally have been frustrated by this situation is perhaps in the realization that cyclists really are a bunch of pedantic rule followers 80% of the time and flagrant rule breakers the other 20. It seems to be easier to break the rules and to get away with it when you do it consciously with a specific advantage in mind - that does not seem right, but maybe that is just me getting caught up in the concept of social justice rather than understanding that this is about social order/control.
The rules, the rules the rules - my suspicion has always been that cycling is like a big classroom of 8 year olds, at a traditional school, being managed by a slightly incompetent teacher who is desperately trying to pretend that they have control. Fans are like parents, at times advocating on their childs behalf even in the face of clear evidence that they are wrong, or being jealous or suspicious of other families.
I have taken on board a lot of the points other have made on this issue and it has given a lot of food for though - unfortunately my school analogy seems to be holding up well.

The chances that the spectator gave the bike up because it was Mick Rogers as opposed to to assist a random pro cyclist are quite slim though.
The chances that Simon Clarke gave his wheel up because it was Richie Porte as opposed to to assist a random fellow pro cyclist are quite high in comparison.

That's the problem. The fan's intentions in assisting a rider are hard to gauge, and the rulebook is silent on the issue of non-race material (Jens Voigt also once survived a Tour timecut using a spectator's bicycle to save time until his team car got to him with a spare).

Another element is that especially before it went World Tour, the Tour Down Under is a race of little consequence and the situation as you mention was a creation of the race organizers' own making so it would be harsh to penalize the rider (especially as the rulebook is less clear when regarding non-participants in the race). Here, the organizers did nothing wrong. Sky did. Orica did. The puncture and resulting situation were not of the organizers' making, therefore it's harder for them to show leniency when the rule - which is clear in its wording if not its intent - has been so publicly broken, and in such a high profile event.

The fact that the fan gave him pretty much a replica of his bike would suggest that he may have been particularly keen to help Roger's out.

Your last paragraph kind of proves the point does it not, that a broad reading of the situation and some discretion may be a better way to go than a blanket inflexible interpretation of a rule that seems out of step with other developments in the sport.

Surely all that this incident has done is to lead to a scrutinizing of a range of pretty ambiguous rules, many of which are clearly not enforced.

Surely the rationale of all rules in the sport should be based on 1.Minimising the wilful pursuit of an unfair advantage, and 2.The safety and wellbeing of the participants and public.

Its a pretty simple test. Drugs, illegal equipment, blatant drafting of a motorcycle and the like are wilful pursuits of an unfair advantage. Accepting a wheel from another rider might be - but in this case it was not, and the impact on the race was negligible.

"Its the rule" and some examples of other people who have been impacted by it should not stifle discussion about the rules validity in modern cycling. What has happened has happened but the split in opinion does show that there is far from consensus on this.

Clarke did not conspire to assist Porte. Surely the rule is there is prevent riders from opposite teams conspiring to create an advantage. A slight change in the wording would have provided some room to move where there was clearly not an intention to break the rule - it will be interesting to see if wording remains the same in 5 years time.

 

[richwagmn]

Re: Re:

[quote="

Say what? The MINIMUM penalty as spelled out in the rules is a loss of two minutes in a stage race. There's nothing arbitrary about the penalty Porte got. In what world do we have rules where penalties actually are arbitrary.?

Could u then give the logic of 2min. What is the justification of 2min. Why not 3 or 5 min or 30 s?
This rule is very old as some posters have already pointed out. Therefore the time penalty should be as per ancient times (People used to win GTs in >10 min and where the state to stage variation used to be in minutes) when 2 min was of little consequence. These days 2 min is huge when GTs are won by less than that margin

All penalties for breaking laws are "arbitrary". Why 5 years in prison for stealing? Why not 3 years? Or 2 days. Because someone picked a value.

Do you know the penalty for breaking this rule in a single day race? Disqualification. Apparently the creators of the rule saw this as a pretty big deal.

Besides, all sporting regulations specify penalties. If they didn't the penalties would truly be arbitrary.

Yes, the rule is quite old and a good one in my opinion because all riders are treated the same.

Porte's team screwed up. Porte gained time by using a non-teammate's wheel that he should have lost.

Really! Stealing an apple will get you 5 years in prison????
I thought stealing an apple will get you a kick up the backside while stealing a billion $ will probably be 40+ years in prison. The sentence is according to the severity of the crime committed and not arbitrary as u are posing here.
Just because a rule is old or applied equally to everybody doesn't mean that it is good. e.g In ancient times stealing meant cutting off one of ur hand - not a good rule in any sense even if applied equally to everybody. In a similar way the rule applied to Porte has simply destroyed any possibility of competition for him. No way for him to comeback.

Where did I say stealing an apple gets you five years in prison? Le me try again more slowly. All penalties are someone's (or many people's) decision. The writers of this rule obviously thought it was a pretty serious offense for reasons that make sense to many (though not to you).

The rule Porte broke was clearly written as was the penalty he received. Whether he purposely cheated or wasn't aware of the rule, it doesn't matter. He broke it, the penalty was applied and that's that. There's nothing even remotely arbitrary about what happened.

 

[Madone]

Re:

Let´s face it:
The nitpickers decided the Giro... For the 2nd year in a row.
2 mins for a wheel?
And no difference between the guy who is 2 hrs behind (who doesn´t care at all about a 2 mins pen), and a GC contender? Double
But if 30 sprinters finish OTL, ofc the rules are bent. Those inconsequent "commissars" shall get their fat asses away, and let the riders decide.
That ladies and gentleman is common sense. Not rule 3.11.B/XII.315 on page 1.725 of a rule book from the year 1871.
Not only Porte got robbed, but the millions of fans, you and I. Only because 5 guys reading a rule book want their satisfaction to...

Not because 5 Guys, Because a team called SKY don´t know the rules and a few riders who have the same problem, don´t blame others for there faults, the only way for the future of the sport is to follow the rules and not what some riders and Sky fans think different.

The big problem now is that Porte suddenly have to race and not sucking wheels and Sky have to manage the race them self like any other team (you know it´s a Team sport not a friend´s sport or national sport).

If you want to get the sponsor´s of the teams to stay they will expect that the least the can do is to show them respect and ride for the team they are paid to and not other teams, Clarke and Mathews only helped because it was Porte any other rider they would have smiled and said such a shame with a big grin on.

Nobody want´s a race winner in a GT like last years Giro winner when won/lost by weak decision´s and what if some helpers have done a chemical thing and they say I only did it tho help a friend not to loose time should he then have no penalty ?? This is pro sport not a tee and cookie club for cry babies.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Surely the rationale of all rules in the sport should be based on 1.Minimising the wilful pursuit of an unfair advantage, and 2.The safety and wellbeing of the participants and public.

Surely it doesn't matter if the unfair advantage is willful or not. If one takes an unfair advantage, like in this case, there should be a penalty. Willful has nothing to do with it.

He saved time by taking the wheel of another team's rider and saved more time by having an extra teammate there to pull him back. That teammate should have been standing by the road waiting for a wheel from a team car, not pulling Porte.

 

[HiroAntagonist]

Poor Skybots. Get over it, he broke rules, tweeted it, and was caught. Put your big boy pants on and stop whinging.

 

[SafeBet]

Re:

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.

Ale Ballan made the same point in an interview with RAI.
Without the motor home part of course.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Poor Skybots. Get over it, he broke rules, tweeted it, and was caught. Put your big boy pants on and stop whinging.

Graham Watson made the photo, so if not Porte, Watson would tweet it, and many others

 

[phanatic]

Re: Re:

Poor Skybots. Get over it, he broke rules, tweeted it, and was caught. Put your big boy pants on and stop whinging.

Graham Watson made the photo, so if not Porte, Watson would tweet it, and many others

It's important to get ahead of the curve and shape the narrative.

 

[BYOP88]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

 

[LaFlorecita]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

My favorite thing was the bitter Porte/Sky fanbois actively pushing for Contador to be disqualified the day after. Butthurt much?

 

[BYOP88]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

My favorite thing was the bitter Porte/Sky fanbois actively pushing for Contador to be disqualified the day after. Butthurt much?

Exactly!

Where were all these Contador should be kicked out people, when he did the same thing on a stage last week?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Let´s face it:
The nitpickers decided the Giro... For the 2nd year in a row.
2 mins for a wheel?
And no difference between the guy who is 2 hrs behind (who doesn´t care at all about a 2 mins pen), and a GC contender? Double
But if 30 sprinters finish OTL, ofc the rules are bent. Those inconsequent "commissars" shall get their fat asses away, and let the riders decide.
That ladies and gentleman is common sense. Not rule 3.11.B/XII.315 on page 1.725 of a rule book from the year 1871.
Not only Porte got robbed, but the millions of fans, you and I. Only because 5 guys reading a rule book want their satisfaction to...

Not because 5 Guys, Because a team called SKY don´t know the rules and a few riders who have the same problem, don´t blame others for there faults, the only way for the future of the sport is to follow the rules and not what some riders and Sky fans think different.

The big problem now is that Porte suddenly have to race and not sucking wheels and Sky have to manage the race them self like any other team (you know it´s a Team sport not a friend´s sport or national sport).

If you want to get the sponsor´s of the teams to stay they will expect that the least the can do is to show them respect and ride for the team they are paid to and not other teams, Clarke and Mathews only helped because it was Porte any other rider they would have smiled and said such a shame with a big grin on.

Nobody want´s a race winner in a GT like last years Giro winner when won/lost by weak decision´s and what if some helpers have done a chemical thing and they say I only did it tho help a friend not to loose time should he then have no penalty ?? This is pro sport not a tee and cookie club for cry babies.

FYI, I don´t care if that was Porte, AC, Valv-Piti or whoever. The thing I pointed out is that the nitpickers are inconsequent, the rules are unfair to different groups of riders, and thus heavily influence the results. Please read again. Thanks.

 

[del1962]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

My favorite thing was the bitter Porte/Sky fanbois actively pushing for Contador to be disqualified the day after. Butthurt much?

Please dont label everyone the same, I would be happy for Porte to win the Giro, however I neither want Contador disqualified for adjusting his helmet or think that Porte should not have been docked the time.

Porte/Sky / Simon Clarke made mistakes, for which they have to suffer the consequences, hopefully they will learn from these mistakes and hopefully Porte wins the timeback on the road and wins the Giro

 

[glassmoon]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

My favorite thing was the bitter Porte/Sky fanbois actively pushing for Contador to be disqualified the day after. Butthurt much?

Exactly!

Where were all these Contador should be kicked out people, when he did the same thing on a stage last week?

not Sky nor TS fan but imho, that helmet thing is more life/health threatening than some wheel change. UCI should be concerned about the health and life of riders on the first place.
you can slip on the wet road easily. didn't uci make the all-time mandatory helmet rule after some unfortunate tragic race accidents?
just saying.

 

[hrotha]

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

 

[LaFlorecita]

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

Great thread.

I bet the Wambulance service was busy these last few days.

My favorite thing was the bitter Porte/Sky fanbois actively pushing for Contador to be disqualified the day after. Butthurt much?

Please dont label everyone the same, I would be happy for Porte to win the Giro, however I neither want Contador disqualified for adjusting his helmet or think that Porte should not have been docked the time.

Porte/Sky / Simon Clarke made mistakes, for which they have to suffer the consequences, hopefully they will learn from these mistakes and hopefully Porte wins the timeback on the road and wins the Giro

I did not mean to imply all Porte/Sky fans wanted him disqualified, rather some bitter fanbois

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

[quote="

Say what? The MINIMUM penalty as spelled out in the rules is a loss of two minutes in a stage race. There's nothing arbitrary about the penalty Porte got. In what world do we have rules where penalties actually are arbitrary.?

Could u then give the logic of 2min. What is the justification of 2min. Why not 3 or 5 min or 30 s?
This rule is very old as some posters have already pointed out. Therefore the time penalty should be as per ancient times (People used to win GTs in >10 min and where the state to stage variation used to be in minutes) when 2 min was of little consequence. These days 2 min is huge when GTs are won by less than that margin

LOL in ancient times you were DQed. "Another Italian, Fausto Coppi won in 1948 but was disqualified for taking a wheel from the Belgian Walschott, who was not of his team."

EDIT: This was at Omloop!

You are still DQ'd today. If its a one day race as the omloop is.

Thanks I didn't know that!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

Have people actually read the all the rules wrt helmets? People seem fixed on only a part of the rules.

The UCI rules also specifically state the rider must make sure the helmet is fitting correctly and straps adjusted as necessary. In order to comply with the UCI rule, it may occasionally be necessary to temporarily remove the helmet to make such adjustments. The removal rule relates to a situation of discarding the helmet, not adjusting it.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

Have people actually read the all the rules wrt helmets? People seem fixed on only a part of the rules.

The UCI rules also specifically state the rider must make sure the helmet is fitting correctly and straps adjusted as necessary. In order to comply with the UCI rule, it may occasionally be necessary to temporarily remove the helmet to make such adjustments. The removal rule relates to a situation of discarding the helmet, not adjusting it.

I've no idea what the helmet rule is but if it's deemed unsafe to ride without one then it is surely even more unsafe to be riding without one while adjusting it / replacing it. The obvious rule should be that the rider should have to stop in order to adjust / replace it

 

[Angliru]

Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

I think it's more of tit-for-tat here. 'Their guy was "unfairly" penalized so his rival needs to be penalized in kind to make them feel better.'

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

I think it's more of tit-for-tat here. 'Their guy was "unfairly" penalized so his rival needs to be penalized in kind to make them feel better.'

It's just so utterly weak.

You can't possibly tow me for parking in a no parking zone! That would be so unfair! Everyone gets away with speeding, and surely that's worse/more dangerous. And even when they get caught they only get a ticket! I've never seen anyone get towed before for parking right in front of the police station exit, well maybe just that guy ten years ago and that other guy twenty years ago. But that's just two guys! You can't possibly expect me to read all the signals. I'm driving, I'm minding the road and the traffic not some stinking signals! And you're going to tow ME? I'm important! I pay more taxes than just about anyone else. It would be bad for the city if I get towed. Use your common sense officer! For the good of the city, you must let me go. For truth and justice and democracy. Where's your creativity, officer? Are you just a mindless rule-follower? At least tow it to my house and not all the way to the yard. Prove that you don't hate me just because I have red hair. Prove it! You're a ginger-hater, officer!

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

Have people actually read the all the rules wrt helmets? People seem fixed on only a part of the rules.

The UCI rules also specifically state the rider must make sure the helmet is fitting correctly and straps adjusted as necessary. In order to comply with the UCI rule, it may occasionally be necessary to temporarily remove the helmet to make such adjustments. The removal rule relates to a situation of discarding the helmet, not adjusting it.

I've no idea what the helmet rule is but if it's deemed unsafe to ride without one then it is surely even more unsafe to be riding without one while adjusting it / replacing it. The obvious rule should be that the rider should have to stop in order to adjust / replace it

What the rules are and what you think they should be are vastly different things. Clearly there is no rule against adjusting one's helmet while riding, as both Contador and several other riders have been doing and will continue to do. Making someone stop to do so would be absurd.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

While I agree that the helmet rule should be enforced without that kind of leeway, the simple fact is that 1) there's ample precedent for allowing the removal of your helmet briefly to readjust it; the rule has really never be interpreted any other way, contrary to the rule about mechanical assistance, and 2) 99% of those who brought it up have no actual problem with it, they're just using it in a weak attempt to prove Porte's penalty was unfair.

Have people actually read the all the rules wrt helmets? People seem fixed on only a part of the rules.

The UCI rules also specifically state the rider must make sure the helmet is fitting correctly and straps adjusted as necessary. In order to comply with the UCI rule, it may occasionally be necessary to temporarily remove the helmet to make such adjustments. The removal rule relates to a situation of discarding the helmet, not adjusting it.

I've no idea what the helmet rule is but if it's deemed unsafe to ride without one then it is surely even more unsafe to be riding without one while adjusting it / replacing it. The obvious rule should be that the rider should have to stop in order to adjust / replace it

What the rules are and what you think they should be are vastly different things. Clearly there is no rule against adjusting one's helmet while riding, as both Contador and several other riders have been doing and will continue to do. Making someone stop to do so would be absurd.

Thanks for stating the obvious. The way the current rule is applied is nonsense for reasons I've explained. But this is off-topic anyhow

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

Your last paragraph kind of proves the point does it not, that a broad reading of the situation and some discretion may be a better way to go than a blanket inflexible interpretation of a rule that seems out of step with other developments in the sport.

To that point, don't the "developments in the sport" almost dictate a less lenient interpretation of this rule in particular?

The sport has "developed" to the point where we have:

1. Neutral support (both cars and motos) who's sole purpose is to service punctures.
2. Dedicated team cars festooned with wheels
3. Race radios (both commissaires and teams)
4. 8 team mates, all of whom have two wheels that are fully interchangeable

It could very easily be argued that, based on developments in the sport, a rider is far less reliant on the assistance of spectators or other riders, and as such if the rider does take advantage of another rider's assistance, the penalty should be more severe than say, in the days when access to today's vast amount of dedicated support didn't exist.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

And no difference between the guy who is 2 hrs behind (who doesn´t care at all about a 2 mins pen), and a GC contender? Double

Erm... why is there any surprise or shock about that? Two guys broke the same rule, both got the same penalty, this is somehow wrong because one is more important to the outcome of the race?

What would you rather?

"Porte is important to the outcome of the race so we had better punish him less than the guy who doesn't care about the punishment because he's not GC relevant, so that he can care about it just as little as Clarke"?

Your idea of "fair" seems to be twisted. And given your track record of stating that you've been taken a deliberate pro-Sky agenda (esp. in the Clinic) to "add balance", I don't think you even believe what you're saying.