The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Mr.White said: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.
B_Ugli said: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.
DFA123 said: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.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.
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.
yaco said:DFA123 said: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.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.
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.
The post is clear - An accident caused by the organisers of the race - Or look at in this way; Racing incident VS Non-Racing Incident - The incident with the moto in the Blockhaus stage was a non-racing incident.
red_flanders said:Mr.White said: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.
They waited for Quintana when the race was full gas. Quintana crashed because he over-cooked a corner, entirely his fault. They also briefly waited for Dumoulin when the race was on full gas. The Quintana situation is an example of taking the waiting bit way, way too far.
Historically the group has slowed and enjoyed an agreement that no one would attack at feed zones or for group-sized natural breaks early in the race. Chiapucci used to piss people off attacking in feed zones and in tunnels, but he is the rare exception to this agreement.
This latest pox of waiting every time the jersey or a top competitor gets in trouble was spread by Armstrong, whose incomplete and muddled understanding of the tradition, mixed with his own desire to play mind games with his competitors set fairly absurd new precedents which people like Hamilton and Ullrich then felt compelled to follow. The false magnanimity of Armstrong changed things for the worse, and let to silly discussions like "Chain-gate" in the cycling world. Of course Contador should continue his attack, it would be absurd to stop attacking every time your competitor had a problem.
Historically there was a tradition of waiting for the patron (or the jersey as it became) if they had a problem. This was probably borne more out of respect and deference to people like Hinault than it was out of sportsmanship.
No one should have waited for Quintana. No one should have waited for Dumoulin. IMO.
B_Ugli said: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.
Hallelujah! Cancellara is the biggest violator of all this silliness.
Indeed. And why wasn't it a racing incident? A rider crashed into a stationary motorbike and brought riders down. How is that so different to riders crashing into unmarked street furniture (e.g. Kangert), getting squeezed by a narrow bit of road, or one of many other obstacles on the course?dirkprovin said:yaco said:DFA123 said: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.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.
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.
The post is clear - An accident caused by the organisers of the race - Or look at in this way; Racing incident VS Non-Racing Incident - The incident with the moto in the Blockhaus stage was a non-racing incident.
Sorry but still not a confirmed sale. Again you have to look at the individual circumstances of each incident. With Blockhaus, IF it had been a case of a major decimation of the field then there was most definitely a case for neutralisation but I would rather than be made by the race officials rather than made by the riders. But that was NOT the case ..... there were little more than 6-7 riders on the deck and delayed minutes by the accident itself. I'm just not sure that it the scope that automatically warrants such action from the race officials much as I dislike seeing any rider hit the deck in a race situation.
Mr.White said:red_flanders said:Mr.White said: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.
They waited for Quintana when the race was full gas. Quintana crashed because he over-cooked a corner, entirely his fault. They also briefly waited for Dumoulin when the race was on full gas. The Quintana situation is an example of taking the waiting bit way, way too far.
Historically the group has slowed and enjoyed an agreement that no one would attack at feed zones or for group-sized natural breaks early in the race. Chiapucci used to piss people off attacking in feed zones and in tunnels, but he is the rare exception to this agreement.
This latest pox of waiting every time the jersey or a top competitor gets in trouble was spread by Armstrong, whose incomplete and muddled understanding of the tradition, mixed with his own desire to play mind games with his competitors set fairly absurd new precedents which people like Hamilton and Ullrich then felt compelled to follow. The false magnanimity of Armstrong changed things for the worse, and let to silly discussions like "Chain-gate" in the cycling world. Of course Contador should continue his attack, it would be absurd to stop attacking every time your competitor had a problem.
Historically there was a tradition of waiting for the patron (or the jersey as it became) if they had a problem. This was probably borne more out of respect and deference to people like Hinault than it was out of sportsmanship.
No one should have waited for Quintana. No one should have waited for Dumoulin. IMO.
B_Ugli said: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.
Hallelujah! Cancellara is the biggest violator of all this silliness.
Don't agree. The race was not full on when Quintana fell, in fact his man, Izagirre was pushing at the front, he overcooked that corner a little, but Quintana overcooked a little bit more and fell. His fault entirely, I agree. But Dumoulin, knowing that racing is not full on, took that opportunity to act as a gentleman and slowed down the peloton. Quintana was very quickly back, and everybody happy. Ideal scenario if you ask me. But that was because he returned quickly, if there was a nastier crash, and no immediate reaction from Quintana, if they were supposed to wait couple of minutes, believe me no Dumoulin would hold that peloton. Someone would force the pace, as they should. And that exactly happened with Dumoulin situation. They stopped, waited a little, 1-2min, Zakarin pushed and Bahrain continued. Everybody happy again, there were no complaints. The race was on though, Kruijswijk was upfront, but they had a little space to wait, specially because Dumoulin done the same in Quintana situation. Which brings me back to Sky/Orica crash at Blockhaus stage. That was a different situation. Movistar had a clear plan to blow the peloton to pieces and win the stage with Quintana. They worked at the front 20-30km before the crash, they were full gas when crash happened. Nobody stops in that situation. Their entire work and strategy would fall apart had they stopped then. Imo, peloton handled every situation exactly as they should. No mistakes there.
And, for the record, if I have to choose between racing and waiting, I'm for racing. But sometimes little waiting does not hurt.
Armstrong falling in Luz Ardiden was his fault or an accident outside his control (non-racing incident)?yaco said:DFA123 said: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.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.
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.
The post is clear - An accident caused by the organisers of the race - Or look at in this way; Racing incident VS Non-Racing Incident - The incident with the moto in the Blockhaus stage was a non-racing incident.
Most of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though.Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
Escarabajo said:Armstrong falling in Luz Ardiden was his fault or an accident outside his control (non-racing incident)?
Who is going to give the riders the verdict in such a pressure moment?
DFA123 said:Most of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
I don't really agree with that. Most mechanicals certainly aren't bad luck imo. They're to do with poor bike set up and riding technique. Crashes certainly more of a grey area, but some riders spend a lot of energy staying near the front whenever possible; should they have to sit up and wait for guys who save energy at the back of the peloton but get caught up in crashes more often? Of course, they can happen to any one at times, but I don't think the distribution of crashes is all that random. Better handlers like Valverde and Sagan - who stay near the front - seem to crash way less than the likes of Contador or Thomas - who aren't so good or aware.Zinoviev Letter said:DFA123 said:Most of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
Most mechanicals and most crashes are luck. The former are obviously mostly beyond a rider's control, the latter are so because most riders who suffer from crashes are not the one who made the error. It is true that some rider behaviours increase or decrease the odds of being in a crash, but although the odds can be massaged ultimately it's a roll of the dice and everyone gets taken down at some point. You can do everything right, be almost always near the front, have superb control and still get taken out b someone else's error.
As for racing to win at all times, how about attacking in the feed zone or during generalised natural breaks?
Zinoviev Letter said:A certain degree of organised non-aggression is built into a sport that involves activity for periods long enough to require eating and urinating mid-competition. Absolutist views on the issue have to ignore this and pretend otherwise.
Views that try to strictly differentiate between attacking someone during a moment of random misfortune and pressing on at the same moment are incoherent.
46&twoWheels said:"is built"?
mmm
that is a rather personal account of what a cycling race should be (idealistic notion),that in no way should reflect what idea of cyling each rider has,as I said,within the limits of fairness (that we should distinguish from an idealistic view)
red_flanders said:46&twoWheels said:"is built"?
mmm
that is a rather personal account of what a cycling race should be (idealistic notion),that in no way should reflect what idea of cyling each rider has,as I said,within the limits of fairness (that we should distinguish from an idealistic view)
That there are long periods of calm after a break gets away on many if not most stages, that there are pauses in the feed zone and for natural breads is not "a rather personal account" or an "idealistic notion". It's an accurate description of professional bike races and is hardly new, controversial, or debatable.
DFA123 said:I don't really agree with that. Most mechanicals certainly aren't bad luck imo. They're to do with poor bike set up and riding technique. Crashes certainly more of a grey area, but some riders spend a lot of energy staying near the front whenever possible.Zinoviev Letter said:DFA123 said:Most of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
Most mechanicals and most crashes are luck. The former are obviously mostly beyond a rider's control, the latter are so because most riders who suffer from crashes are not the one who made the error. It is true that some rider behaviours increase or decrease the odds of being in a crash, but although the odds can be massaged ultimately it's a roll of the dice and everyone gets taken down at some point. You can do everything right, be almost always near the front, have superb control and still get taken out b someone else's error.
As for racing to win at all times, how about attacking in the feed zone or during generalised natural breaks?
46&twoWheels said:red_flanders said:46&twoWheels said:"is built"?
mmm
that is a rather personal account of what a cycling race should be (idealistic notion),that in no way should reflect what idea of cyling each rider has,as I said,within the limits of fairness (that we should distinguish from an idealistic view)
That there are long periods of calm after a break gets away on many if not most stages, that there are pauses in the feed zone and for natural breads is not "a rather personal account" or an "idealistic notion". It's an accurate description of professional bike races and is hardly new, controversial, or debatable.
I agree with all you say,absolutely
Although I was criticizing his idea of "built-in" non-aggression during events like the one happened the other day
Zinoviev Letter said:46&twoWheels said:red_flanders said:46&twoWheels said:"is built"?
mmm
that is a rather personal account of what a cycling race should be (idealistic notion),that in no way should reflect what idea of cyling each rider has,as I said,within the limits of fairness (that we should distinguish from an idealistic view)
That there are long periods of calm after a break gets away on many if not most stages, that there are pauses in the feed zone and for natural breads is not "a rather personal account" or an "idealistic notion". It's an accurate description of professional bike races and is hardly new, controversial, or debatable.
I agree with all you say,absolutely
Although I was criticizing his idea of "built-in" non-aggression during events like the one happened the other day
i.e. You don't actually disagree with what I said about some degree of mutual cooperation being built into a sport involving activity long enough to necessitate eating and urinating, but you have some agenda to defend rider's behaviour in an incident I didn't mention.
That's quite a leap you've made from what I've written. And a pretty childish and disingenuous way of trying to steer the discussion to different waters.Zinoviev Letter said:No most mechanicals are not down to poor set up or technique - an absolute majority of them are punctures to people riding inside a peloton minding their own business and not doing anything particularly silly. Trying to blame riders for that is absurd. Crashes are not a gray area either. You can be taken down by random road surface problems or someone else's error or countless other things. You can spend energy minimising some of the risks, or you can have excellent bike handling, but you cannot eliminate the risks. Everyone gets taken down through no fault of their own some time. Regardless of the etiquette riders choose to observe around crashes, those who minimise those risks already get the reward of being less likely over time to smash themselves over the road and pick up injuries.
What you are doing here is using the undoubted fact that rider's behaviour can influence luck to some extent to treat luck as irrelevant. You need to do that in order to justify the unjustifiable idea that everyone gets what's coming to them and that therefore it is undesirable that rider's should feel any sense of obligation to sportsmanship or fairness.
That's what I mean. Why complicate things. Race on at that moment.red_flanders said:Red Rick said:In a legit action stage it's ok. When nothing is happening anyway, just wait. I rather see riders win by merit than by sheer luck.
Yes, exactly. I would only say it's not only OK, I expect it.
Escarabajo said:Armstrong falling in Luz Ardiden was his fault or an accident outside his control (non-racing incident)?
Who is going to give the riders the verdict in such a pressure moment?
Mostly his fault, somewhat bad luck–it's often not going to be totally black and white, and it's beside the point. He crashed at a critical moment. Race on.