Porte Penalised 2 minutes for getting Clarkes Wheel -Fair?

[red_flanders]

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

Fortunately for Contador, teammate Matteo Tosatto was nearby and he was able to take the Italian’s bike to complete the stage. Porte wasn’t so lucky and he had to wait around much longer to get a bike from his teammate Vasil Kiriyenka. Despite a frantic chase, the Australian crossed the line 2:08 behind the leaders and now languishes down in 17th spot in the overall classification at 5:05 behind Aru.

Anyone still want to make the argument that the 2 min rule is a bad one?

 

[deValtos]

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

Anyone still want to make the argument that the 2 min rule is a bad one?

Well I'll give it a go, hear me out

A rider does not get a choice whether he gets a puncture or not (well, 99.9% true but lets assume 100%). Therefore when someone gets a puncture every other rider in the race essenitally receives an unfair advantage. Every effort should be made to reduce said unfair advantage, since we want a fair race. I think we can all agree up to this point.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but the main argument against this is that you are concerned that the method of reducing said unfair advantage would in itself be unfair. Since some riders might have more friends (on different teams) than others hence more wheels available, hence quicker wheel change on average etc.

I think someone gave an interesting example earlier we could look at that supposed both Aru and Porte punctured at the same time with no teammates available. Clarke then comes along and hands his wheel to Porte leaving Aru stranded and still waiting for some time longer.

When you consider Aru and Porte in isolation this situation looks very unfair, hence I can see where the justifications for this rule are comming from. However consider the situation of Porte and Aru as a whole in terms of all, say 200, riders in the race. When Porte and Aru punctured (which as I assumed in the first paragraph to be no fault of their own) the other 198 riders receive an unfair advantage over Porte and Aru. My argument is that the unfair advantage the other 198 riders gain considerably outweighs the unfair advantage Porte recieves over Aru in the above scenario. So on one hand we have 198 riders benefiting twofold (once for Aru, once for Porte) and on the other hand we have 1 rider (Porte) benefiting over 1 other (Aru.)

Mathematically it then makes more sense to try and solve the first hand at the expense of the second and put every effort possible into doing that.

Of course this scenario is probably not that likely to happen. We know what actually occured was that only Porte punctured. So in this case we have on one hand 198 riders receiving an unfair advantage over Porte and on the other we have that potentially 1 rider (Porte) benefiting over 1 other (Aru.) In my opinion the advantage the other 198 riders gain considerably outweighs the unfair advantage Porte might potenitally (though potentially not) recieve over Aru in the above scenario.

 

[red_flanders]

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

Anyone still want to make the argument that the 2 min rule is a bad one?

Well I'll give it a go, hear me out

A rider does not get a choice whether he gets a puncture or not (well, 99.9% true but lets assume 100%). Therefore when someone gets a puncture every other rider in the race essenitally receives an unfair advantage. Every effort should be made to reduce said unfair advantage, since we want a fair race. I think we can all agree up to this point.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but the main argument against this is that you are concerned that the method of reducing said unfair advantage would in itself be unfair. Since some riders might have more friends (on different teams) than others hence more wheels available, hence quicker wheel change on average etc.

I think someone gave an interesting example earlier we could look at that supposed both Aru and Porte punctured at the same time with no teammates available. Clarke then comes along and hands his wheel to Porte leaving Aru stranded and still waiting for some time longer.

When you consider Aru and Porte in isolation this situation looks very unfair, hence I can see where the justifications for this rule are comming from. However consider the situation of Porte and Aru as a whole in terms of all, say 200, riders in the race. When Porte and Aru punctured (which as I assumed in the first paragraph to be no fault of their own) the other 198 riders receive an unfair advantage over Porte and Aru. My argument is that the unfair advantage the other 198 riders gain considerably outweighs the unfair advantage Porte recieves over Aru in the above scenario. So on one hand we have 198 riders benefiting twofold (once for Aru, once for Porte) and on the other hand we have 1 rider (Porte) benefiting over 1 other (Aru.)

Mathematically it then makes more sense to try and solve the first hand at the expense of the second and put every effort possible into doing that.

Of course this scenario is probably not that likely to happen. We know what actually occured was that only Porte punctured. So in this case we have on one hand 198 riders receiving an unfair advantage over Porte and on the other we have that potentially 1 rider (Porte) benefiting over 1 other (Aru.) In my opinion the advantage the other 198 riders gain considerably outweighs the unfair advantage Porte might potenitally (though potentially not) recieve over Aru in the above scenario.

Well not surprisingly I disagree.

One situation is unavoidable (flats). The other is wholly avoidable and as such covered by the rules.

 

[deValtos]

I'm going to have one more crack at convincing you since I genuinely think it's an unfair rule and well this is the internet ...

Time to bring out the big guns. Consider a typical lead group formed of 7 riders: Pantani, Merckx, Armstrong, Zubeldia, Kittel, Contador & Greipel.

Scenario A: Suddenly both Pantani and Merckx puncture and they've got no teammates ! One minute passes by and Cavendish (who's on a different team) rolls up and offers his wheel to Pantani. Pantani changes his wheel instantly and sets off at a +1:00 disadvantage to the lead group. Merckx has to wait a full further minute before his teammate rolls up and changes his wheel. Merckx then sets off at a +2:00 disadvantage to the leading group of 5 riders and +1:00 behind Pantani.

Scenario B: Suddenly both Pantani and Merckx puncture and they've got no teammates ! One minute passes by and Cavendish sprints past, he'd like to help little Marco out but it's against the rules. Another minute goes by and Pantani and Merckx's teammates finally show up and change their wheels resulting in both riders setting off at a +2:00 disadvantage to the leading group of 5.

Right so let's see if we can somehow objectively quanitfy which scenario is most "unfair" in terms of the relationships between all 7 riders. Well we could look at the time differences.

In scenario B both Pantani and Merkcx are 2 minutes behind the leading group. Since there are 5 riders in the leading group each of Pantani/Merckx have lost an aggregate of 10 minutes in terms of time difference between all the riders. Adding those together we have an "unjust" net loss of 20 minutes when you consider the relationship of all 7 riders.

In scenario A Pantani is only one minute behind the leading group of 5 resulting in an aggregate loss of 5 minutes. Merckx has an aggregate loss of 10 minutes on the lead group plus an additional loss of another minute due to being behind Pantani. Adding those all together we have an "unjust" net loss of 16 minutes.

So objectively scenario A is more favourable in terms of having a fair race between all 7 riders. The counterarguments (as applied to my scenario) only look at the difference between Pantani and Merckx and claim the unfairness there but don't focus on the race as a whole. When you consider the relationships between every single rider in the race I think the rule is wrong.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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

Fortunately for Contador, teammate Matteo Tosatto was nearby and he was able to take the Italian’s bike to complete the stage. Porte wasn’t so lucky and he had to wait around much longer to get a bike from his teammate Vasil Kiriyenka. Despite a frantic chase, the Australian crossed the line 2:08 behind the leaders and now languishes down in 17th spot in the overall classification at 5:05 behind Aru.

Anyone still want to make the argument that the 2 min rule is a bad one?

Good post Red.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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

Fortunately for Contador, teammate Matteo Tosatto was nearby and he was able to take the Italian’s bike to complete the stage. Porte wasn’t so lucky and he had to wait around much longer to get a bike from his teammate Vasil Kiriyenka. Despite a frantic chase, the Australian crossed the line 2:08 behind the leaders and now languishes down in 17th spot in the overall classification at 5:05 behind Aru.

Anyone still want to make the argument that the 2 min rule is a bad one?

Good post Red.

 

[mrhender]

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

 

[deValtos]

Re:

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

Essentially yes. We are all agreed that the time lost due to a puncture is unfair. Therefore the fairest thing to do should be to minimise it as much as possible. IMO ofc

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

Essentially yes. We are all agreed that the time lost due to a puncture is unfair. Therefore the fairest thing to do should be to minimise it as much as possible. IMO ofc

But isn't that discrimination?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Re: Re:

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

Essentially yes. We are all agreed that the time lost due to a puncture is unfair. Therefore the fairest thing to do should be to minimise it as much as possible. IMO ofc

No, we do not all agree. I for one consider puncturing part of normal RR action. Its neither fair nor unfair. The incident is completely normal and a timeloss is to be expected.

I might agree to the word unlucky. But fairness simply doesn't apply when it comes to losing time related to a puncture imo.

 

[deValtos]

I don't think so. Even for riders with very friends when you calculate the net time loss relative to riders with more friends it is still beneficial for the unsociable riders. Sure they're friends won't come along often, but occasionaly they will. The only possible way the rule wouldn't make any difference to you is if you had no friends in the entire peloton.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

Essentially yes. We are all agreed that the time lost due to a puncture is unfair. Therefore the fairest thing to do should be to minimise it as much as possible. IMO ofc

No, we do not all agree. I for one consider puncturing part of normal RR action. Its neither fair nor unfair. The incident is completely normal and a timeloss is to be expected.

I might agree to the word unlucky. But fairness simply doesn't apply when it comes to losing time related to a puncture imo.

Exactly. A puncture is unlucky, but not unfair. Every rider in the peloton has an equal chance of puncturing on any given stage.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It should be irrelevant because unless we're on a difficult stage where helpers have been shelled and the leaders are isolated (in which case picking up a wheel from the nearby riders will always be inherently difficult as many of them will be racing in their own interest and unwilling to help, and if they are it will be unlikely that they will get there before a team car - which should be following the leaders' group - or a neutral service car à la 2009 Vuelta), there should always be at least one domestique with any rider who is important enough that a domestique would be expected to give up a wheel for them. Anybody who wouldn't expect a domestique to give up their wheel or bike for them at that point is not going to be someone that a rider from an opposing team would help anyway because their time loss will not be relevant.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

@devaltos
So you are saying it is more fair that those who have more friends and a broader national "appeal" get's a wheel because the total time lost of all in need is lesser?

Essentially yes. We are all agreed that the time lost due to a puncture is unfair. Therefore the fairest thing to do should be to minimise it as much as possible. IMO ofc

I regard it as unfortunate, not unfair.

 

[deValtos]

Re:

It should be irrelevant because unless we're on a difficult stage where helpers have been shelled and the leaders are isolated (in which case picking up a wheel from the nearby riders will always be inherently difficult as many of them will be racing in their own interest and unwilling to help, and if they are it will be unlikely that they will get there before a team car - which should be following the leaders' group - or a neutral service car à la 2009 Vuelta), there should always be at least one domestique with any rider who is important enough that a domestique would be expected to give up a wheel for them. Anybody who wouldn't expect a domestique to give up their wheel or bike for them at that point is not going to be someone that a rider from an opposing team would help anyway because their time loss will not be relevant.

If that was the case then the rule is redundant and only serves to catch out people who don't know it (Porte & Clarke).

@ the others regarding a puncture as unlucky rather than unfair, yea you can call it that. I don't feel that it detracts from my argument though, at least from my perspective. Honnestly I'd rather we didn't have punctures at all, ruins the racing for me.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Lol, I love incidents in road racing (except issues seriously injuring riders). I like to see the response, The dynamic these incidents creates. The drama. The ups and downs. Its pretty essential to RR.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

@ the others regarding a puncture as unlucky rather than unfair, yea you can call it that. I don't feel that it detracts from my argument though, at least from my perspective. Honnestly I'd rather we didn't have punctures at all, ruins the racing for me.

@ deValtos - I have the same line of thinking on this matter as you do, and also see the rule as prohibiting from achieving higher aggregate rate of fairness. But as others have pointed out, opinion on this really differs depending on how you perceive situation when a puncture occurrs...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Re: Re:

@ the others regarding a puncture as unlucky rather than unfair, yea you can call it that. I don't feel that it detracts from my argument though, at least from my perspective. Honnestly I'd rather we didn't have punctures at all, ruins the racing for me.

@ deValtos - I have the same line of thinking on this matter as you do, and also see the rule as prohibiting from achieving higher aggregate rate of fairness. But as others have pointed out, opinion on this really differs depending on how you perceive situation when a puncture occurrs...

Nah, not for me. The location or timing of a puncture doesn't influence my view on the matter.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

@ the others regarding a puncture as unlucky rather than unfair, yea you can call it that. I don't feel that it detracts from my argument though, at least from my perspective. Honnestly I'd rather we didn't have punctures at all, ruins the racing for me.

@ deValtos - I have the same line of thinking on this matter as you do, and also see the rule as prohibiting from achieving higher aggregate rate of fairness. But as others have pointed out, opinion on this really differs depending on how you perceive situation when a puncture occurrs...

Nah, not for me. The location or timing of a puncture doesn't influence my view on the matter.

Sure, I meant perception in general (regardless of circumstances) - such as your view that incidents are inevitable part of racing and your accepting that their effect on results is legitimate is an example of the opposite opinion to mine and probably deValtos' and justifies your stance towards the rule. I can understand that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

It should be irrelevant because unless we're on a difficult stage where helpers have been shelled and the leaders are isolated (in which case picking up a wheel from the nearby riders will always be inherently difficult as many of them will be racing in their own interest and unwilling to help, and if they are it will be unlikely that they will get there before a team car - which should be following the leaders' group - or a neutral service car à la 2009 Vuelta), there should always be at least one domestique with any rider who is important enough that a domestique would be expected to give up a wheel for them. Anybody who wouldn't expect a domestique to give up their wheel or bike for them at that point is not going to be someone that a rider from an opposing team would help anyway because their time loss will not be relevant.

If that was the case then the rule is redundant and only serves to catch out people who don't know it (Porte & Clarke).

@ the others regarding a puncture as unlucky rather than unfair, yea you can call it that. I don't feel that it detracts from my argument though, at least from my perspective. Honnestly I'd rather we didn't have punctures at all, ruins the racing for me.

The rule is in fact not redundant, because in the situation that I outline there should be no circumstance where an opponent's wheel is necessary for any reason other than collusion, if teams do their jobs properly.

That's why it's a punishable offence.

 

[oncehadhair]

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...

+1

 

[oncehadhair]

Re: Re:

"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"?

Well that's exactly the argument that seems to be used to ignore the rules for the railway crossers in p-r, when a rider who is high on gc is being draughted by team cars back to the peloton, when riders are given a push while pretending to have repairs done, when many riders miss the time cut.... it just goes on.
But its not ok here?
No problem with rules, huge problem with consistency. If they are going to apply rules, be consistent

 

[Angliru]

Re:

I don't think so. Even for riders with very friends when you calculate the net time loss relative to riders with more friends it is still beneficial for the unsociable riders. Sure they're friends won't come along often, but occasionaly they will. The only possible way the rule wouldn't make any difference to you is if you had no friends in the entire peloton.

This is absolutely ludicrous. The reason that you have teammates, a ds in the team car with wheels and an extra bike and neutral service vehicle is for situations such as this. If your team can't organize themselves well enough to support their gc contender they deserve whatever happens when mechanicals and flats occur. Also it's not unfair, it's a common part of the sport. There is no unfair advantage gained. Unfair would be someone getting one of their mates from another team to give up wheel in order to minimize your time loss.

 

[Savant12]

Re: Re:

I don't think so. Even for riders with very friends when you calculate the net time loss relative to riders with more friends it is still beneficial for the unsociable riders. Sure they're friends won't come along often, but occasionaly they will. The only possible way the rule wouldn't make any difference to you is if you had no friends in the entire peloton.

This is absolutely ludicrous. The reason that you have teammates, a ds in the team car with wheels and an extra bike and neutral service vehicle is for situations such as this. If your team can't organize themselves well enough to support their gc contender they deserve whatever happens when mechanicals and flats occur. Also it's not unfair, it's a common part of the sport. There is no unfair advantage gained. Unfair would be someone getting one of their mates from another team to give up wheel in order to minimize your time loss.

I don't see it as unfair. In the same situation, would not another Spanish rider offer up a wheel for Contador or Italian rider for Aru? It's no different than say gifting a stage to other riders with the off-chance that they may be able to repay you later in another race when you need their help. Or riders of your same nationality pacing you back to the main peleton or to the finish line to minimize your losses. There is such a thing such as sportsmanship or camaraderie, which sadly the sport of cycling needs a lot more of rather than selective enforcement of the "rules".

That's not to say the Sky philosophy of marginal gains has been a complete farce at this Giro and if they were organized better then Porte should be down less time than he is now. I say this as a Sky fan.

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

I don't think so. Even for riders with very friends when you calculate the net time loss relative to riders with more friends it is still beneficial for the unsociable riders. Sure they're friends won't come along often, but occasionaly they will. The only possible way the rule wouldn't make any difference to you is if you had no friends in the entire peloton.

This is absolutely ludicrous. The reason that you have teammates, a ds in the team car with wheels and an extra bike and neutral service vehicle is for situations such as this. If your team can't organize themselves well enough to support their gc contender they deserve whatever happens when mechanicals and flats occur. Also it's not unfair, it's a common part of the sport. There is no unfair advantage gained. Unfair would be someone getting one of their mates from another team to give up wheel in order to minimize your time loss.

I don't see it as unfair. In the same situation, would not another Spanish rider offer up a wheel for Contador or Italian rider for Aru? It's no different than say gifting a stage to other riders with the off-chance that they may be able to repay you later in another race when you need their help. Or riders of your same nationality pacing you back to the main peleton or to the finish line to minimize your losses. There is such a thing such as sportsmanship or camaraderie, which sadly the sport of cycling needs a lot more of rather than selective enforcement of the "rules".

That's not to say the Sky philosophy of marginal gains has been a complete farce at this Giro and if they were organized better then Porte should be down less time than he is now. I say this as a Sky fan.

Sure it's nice, but the rule makes sense.
It's a teamsport. If you let this go then we get all kinds of wrong alliances going in this sport which we do not want. Sky had to help Richie and they failed badly.

Unfortunately I must say. Yesterday they failed again and now he's 5 minutes down and I doubt he's still a contender. I most of all think he's mentally broken.
In all seriousness though he can still reach the podium if he's still good. This TT will be crazy and then we got...3-4 serious mountain stages were minutes can be made up.
I doubt he can make up minutes on Contador, but if he's still on good form (quite unsure about that) he can make up time on any other rider. Ofcourse it's hard to deal with 4 minutes time lost due to shitty situations, but he's got to man up now if he wants to proof he can be GT contender and show some balls from this day on.

If he can do that then he will earn respect from pretty much everyone. I seriously doubt it will happen though.