• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Putting an end to 'waiting'?

So, clearly almost everyone on here is so partisan that there is never any agreement as to whether the 'race was on', 'they should have waited', 'such and such lacks sportsmanship' blah blah blah.

As there is clearly no consensus in the peleton as to when the race should be temporarily held up, wouldn't it make more sense for the peleton to agree that it should never be held up, that way everyone is affected the same. Currently you have the situation where 'sneaky f'ers' end up benefiting and decent riders potentially lose out.

I say screw it, even if a tv drone falls on the leaders head on the last climbing stage of the tour - put him in difficulty.

This would end the mindless, boring back and forward, discussions that some people on here just can't seem to move on from. People are still harping on about Quintana on in 2014 FFS, it was 3 years ago, move on.

Unless it is a deliberate attempt to sabotage someone, i.e. some idiot deliberately punching someone in the face (it really can't be long before someone takes a swing at Froome), get on with it.
 
Mar 13, 2015
949
0
0
Visit site
Singer01 said:
So, clearly almost everyone on here is so partisan that there is never any agreement as to whether the 'race was on', 'they should have waited', 'such and such lacks sportsmanship' blah blah blah.

As there is clearly no consensus in the peleton as to when the race should be temporarily held up, wouldn't it make more sense for the peleton to agree that it should never be held up, that way everyone is affected the same. Currently you have the situation where 'sneaky f'ers' end up benefiting and decent riders potentially lose out.

I say screw it, even if a tv drone falls on the leaders head on the last climbing stage of the tour - put him in difficulty.

This would end the mindless, boring back and forward, discussions that some people on here just can't seem to move on from. People are still harping on about Quintana on in 2014 FFS, it was 3 years ago, move on.

Unless it is a deliberate attempt to sabotage someone, i.e. some idiot deliberately punching someone in the face (it really can't be long before someone takes a swing at Froome), get on with it.

Has any rider said they should have waited yesterday?
 
I'd say any incident completely outside an individual riders control that could affect the outcome the race should warrant sitting up and waiting for those affected. This should include any incident where a spectator or spectators intentionally disrupt the race or when a race vehicle is involved.
 
Yes let's take all sportmanship out of the sport. Yesterday isn't even an issue anymore, they hardly waited anyway and everyone including Dumoulin is okay with it. If you never allow soft pedalling the peloton will go berserk when someone has to take a piss. What's that all about?
 
Re:

therealthing said:
I'd say any incident completely outside an individual riders control that could affect the outcome the race should warrant sitting up and waiting for those affected. This should include any incident where a spectator or spectators intentionally disrupt the race or when a race vehicle is involved.
Then your just going back to a judgement call, which is almost impossible to apply fairly. What about, for example, if another rider crashes in front of you? That's completely outside an individual riders control as well. Or a railway crossing closing? Then you have the issue that riders in a break don't have to stop, so it is an unfair disadvantage to those in the affected group who have to sit up.

It has to be all or nothing I think, and stopping the race for all incidents just kills it as a spectacle. So the only solution is that the race is on at all times. Everyone knows exactly where they stand then.
 
I would most certainly not "outlaw" waiting or extending "generosity" but the reality is, and probably has always been, that doing so will always be conditional of the actual race circumstances of each specific incident (most specifically the When and the Where). That is why trying to make comparisons is fraught at best and often patently unfair. Essentially, riders/leaders WILL be far more likely to "extend charity" when the race circumstances at that time indicate that doing so is not going to 'cost them' in a racing sense.

I believe that actual neutralisation decisions should be left in the hands of the race officials. Yes, perhaps there are times that they should've/could've done so but haven't and perhaps they could better "codify" under what circumstances they are to consider doing so but all too often, the circumstances in question don't fit any "textbook scenarios"
 
Re:

Ikbengodniet said:
Yes let's take all sportmanship out of the sport. Yesterday isn't even an issue anymore, they hardly waited anyway and everyone including Dumoulin is okay with it. If you never allow soft pedalling the peloton will go berserk when someone has to take a piss. What's that all about?
Which is fair enough. Why punish the riders who can manage their fluid intake more accurately, by having to sit and wait while rivals unburden themselves of half a kilo of excess weight.
 
Eagle said:
Singer01 said:
So, clearly almost everyone on here is so partisan that there is never any agreement as to whether the 'race was on', 'they should have waited', 'such and such lacks sportsmanship' blah blah blah.

As there is clearly no consensus in the peleton as to when the race should be temporarily held up, wouldn't it make more sense for the peleton to agree that it should never be held up, that way everyone is affected the same. Currently you have the situation where 'sneaky f'ers' end up benefiting and decent riders potentially lose out.

I say screw it, even if a tv drone falls on the leaders head on the last climbing stage of the tour - put him in difficulty.

This would end the mindless, boring back and forward, discussions that some people on here just can't seem to move on from. People are still harping on about Quintana on in 2014 FFS, it was 3 years ago, move on.

Unless it is a deliberate attempt to sabotage someone, i.e. some idiot deliberately punching someone in the face (it really can't be long before someone takes a swing at Froome), get on with it.

Has any rider said they should have waited yesterday?

Not just talking about yesterday, and apparently Zakarin's DS called him back (though that may be total BS),if so clearly some people think they should have waited.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
You wait when the commisaires tell you to wait. Otherwise you race.
Exactly, and the commisaires should only be intervening for safety reasons imo.

Yep, agreed. The riders can decide if it's mutually beneficial to wait for pee breaks, collecting food etc. but unless the commisaires have told people to wait then the race is on.

Agreed.

No need to stop, you can *** on your pants while riding, especially when water is falling from the sky. Lemond can give you some tips.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
You wait when the commisaires tell you to wait. Otherwise you race.

That ought to be the case. I only wish I had more confidence in the commissaires thus entrusted.

Although I hardly ever watch soccer any more, it is similar to (but far more influential on the outcome than) the practice that arose of kicking the ball out of play,and expecting it to be given back, or unchallenged dropballs. Then crazed arguments raged about where the throw should be directed, or who is or is not obliged to put it out, or what level of injury is sufficient. I even saw a referee book a player for competing a dropball, when there is nothing on the laws of the game that prohibits him from doing so.

It is unregulated, so built on trust, it is uncertain in its application or to whom it applies. Sanctions cannot be brought for not doing it, riders do not want to do it unilaterally.

Joint statement on last day of season (or maybe even last day of Giro) from all WT DSs: we don't expect other teams to waitfor us, and we don't feel constrained to wait for others.

In a sport where just about all teams are heavily sponsored (even if not as name sponsors) by bike/component/nutrition manufacturers, those companies had better make sure their product is up to the task.
 
I'd say it depends on the situation.
Take yesterday, they did in fact slow down a little, but then it just wasn't possible anymore if they wanted to keep Kruijswijk from jumping too high in the GC. Besides, at first Dumoulin really wasn't making up any ground to them, didn't have the energy (understandbly, who'd have much energy in a situation like that?), so it at the time was a bit like when someone crashes and clearly isn't gonna come back on the bike anytime soon - Danish commentators tried to compare it with Kangert's crash... yeah... doesn't work.

Then take the moto-crash at Blockhaus; Movistar had already begun their attack. Should they have waited? Of course not.

Then there are situations like the big moto-crash in Belgium Tour last year, that was so extreme I'd imagine they basically had to hold back all the medic crew to help the injured, so if they'd continued and someone had crashed later on: Disaster! (Same situation in the big crash in the 2015 Tour), also in that particular crash several of them probably saw their colleague life-less on the ground, not a situation who'd want to race in...
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
You wait when the commisaires tell you to wait. Otherwise you race.
Exactly, and the commisaires should only be intervening for safety reasons imo.

Yep, agreed. The riders can decide if it's mutually beneficial to wait for pee breaks, collecting food etc. but unless the commisaires have told people to wait then the race is on.

The riders can also decide if it's mutually beneficial to wait for crashes or other hindrances of a certain sort.

It's up to the peloton to evolve, and enforce, unofficial rules to their liking. We as viewers have a say as well, if we express our outrage, or don't.

It's almost like politics.
 
Aside from the race officials, the riders on the road at the time will always make the decision. Just as they have for the last 100+ years. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't; it's a fact of life. When they do, it is usually because the deciding group will not be affected adversely :).
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
I'd say it depends on the situation.
Take yesterday, they did in fact slow down a little, but then it just wasn't possible anymore if they wanted to keep Kruijswijk from jumping too high in the GC. Besides, at first Dumoulin really wasn't making up any ground to them, didn't have the energy (understandbly, who'd have much energy in a situation like that?), so it at the time was a bit like when someone crashes and clearly isn't gonna come back on the bike anytime soon - Danish commentators tried to compare it with Kangert's crash... yeah... doesn't work.

Then take the moto-crash at Blockhaus; Movistar had already begun their attack. Should they have waited? Of course not.

Then there are situations like the big moto-crash in Belgium Tour last year, that was so extreme I'd imagine they basically had to hold back all the medic crew to help the injured, so if they'd continued and someone had crashed later on: Disaster! (Same situation in the big crash in the 2015 Tour), also in that particular crash several of them probably saw their colleague life-less on the ground, not a situation who'd want to race in...
Yes this. Entirely dependent on the race situation. If waiting means significantly changing the race situation such as clearly losing a chance of a stage win or losing GC position then that is not going to happen - in fact should never happen. Waiting for over a minute while TD is offroad was not an option yesterday for obvious reasons - NIbali could not have won the stage for example.

In other situations it might make sense to slow up because little or nothing would be gained by doing otherwise. Quintana's crash being an example since he was back on his bike very quickly and had most of his team with him. No point in provoking a very strong team in those circumstances.

No new rule required - just better informed comment from the cycling media. It is very surprising that even experienced ex-riders and team managers seem to have a very poor understanding of this
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
You wait when the commisaires tell you to wait. Otherwise you race.
Exactly, and the commisaires should only be intervening for safety reasons imo.

Yep, agreed. The riders can decide if it's mutually beneficial to wait for pee breaks, collecting food etc. but unless the commisaires have told people to wait then the race is on.

The riders can also decide if it's mutually beneficial to wait for crashes or other hindrances of a certain sort.

It's up to the peloton to evolve, and enforce, unofficial rules to their liking. We as viewers have a say as well, if we express our outrage, or don't.

It's almost like politics.

To a point yes, but if a massive crash behind removes all medical coverage then the commisaires need to stop the racing at the front. Similarly a crash on a descent may necessitate a suspension of racing while people negotiate it. Riders shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of their own safety in these kind of situations.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
In this Giro so far they didn't made one single bad decision. When was opportunity to wait, they waited. When the race was on, they went full gas, as they should.
 
Any other sport this isn't even a debate, it may be nice to look after your friends in a time of misfortune (or even poor conditioning if yesterday is a wait) but trying to call the race off supra-judicially is not many steps from match fixing and sits up there with shady acts like recruiting riders from other teams to work.

In reality I think a lot of it is about how you want to be treated when the shoe is on the other foot, hence why no attacking through feed zones/bulk piss stops. Don't make enemies when you have little to gain.

Commisaires should play a more active role intervening where unforeseen external forces significantly interfere with the race, of course this is tough with multiple groups etc. If riders stopped trying to be their own referees maybe officials would become more confident.

Zakarin over Cancellara, always.

(Was actually a stupid attack from Zakarin anyway, would have blown up).
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Visit site
I think the truce has gone too far in recent years in part down to characters like Boonen and Cancellara going full *** *** and throwing their toys out of the pram in protests over trivia.

Having said that quite a few GC contenders not concentrating at critical moments in races and losing minutes in windy stages at the hands of other teams sticking the hammer down is now pretty common. As is teams sticking the knife in when somebody is having a bad day.

I say race on but i think Nibali 'no one waits for me' sentiment comes from the situation above rather than someone attacking him when he is having a whizz.

Lets hope he doesn't get dodgy guts too this week!!
 
Re:

therealthing said:
I'd say any incident completely outside an individual riders control that could affect the outcome the race should warrant sitting up and waiting for those affected. This should include any incident where a spectator or spectators intentionally disrupt the race or when a race vehicle is involved.
And how do they riders know exactly what happened? do they have to wait for the investigation to find out who was at fault? Impossible!