Putting an end to 'waiting'?

[Gloin22]

This will continue as long as leaders who are leading the race by some margin will always wait if something happens to 2nd close rival to make themselves look ''good and honorable'' even in most cases GC is over

social conditioning and all that crap

 

[DanielSong39]

No one ever waits for Tejay van Garderen...

 

[46&twoWheels]

"mors tua vita mea"


nobody yesterday gained an unfair advantage by directly(personally) handicapping the opposition though. Why should they stop? for the love of an ideal race?
The race should be fair, not necessarily ideal

the race is not about who goes faster. It's a game

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

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.

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.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

 

[dirkprovin]

Re: Re:

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.

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]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

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?

A police motorbike is surely like a referee in soccer. Sure, they may occasionally make an error and get in the way, but it's up to the players to avoid it - it's not a track race after all.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

I feel like you're splitting hairs over the definition of "full on" a bit. It was at the end of a medium mountain stage, and the result was totally in question. That's "full on" enough for me.

Dumoulin's waiting was the act of a guy who wasn't yet sure of himself as a leader. I doubt we'll see him do something like that again, he seems to be growing in his understanding of how to lead a race.

I'm not suggesting that it's black and white, and I think it would be boring if it were. There is always going to be ambiguity about when one should attack or not, and that's part of the beauty of the race. I don't want it distilled down to "only stop when the marshals say you can". Not implementable, not interesting, and ultimately not very human.

What I do think is that we've gone way too far. I don't think anyone needed to attack Quintana in that situation, but no one needed to wait either. Just race on. You crash on a descent? Too bad, it's a bike race. I don't need to put in an attack to bury you, but I certainly would continue to race the situation as it existed.

Let's just keep it to feed zones, major mechanicals in non-critical times, etc. You have a problem in a critical juncture of the race, either thought your own fault or bad luck? Too bad.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

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.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

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]

Re:

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 of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though.

Dumoulin's eating too many gels and not handling altitude well isn't bad luck - it's a physiological issue. Quintana crashing isn't bad luck - it's poor bike handling. Schleck messing up a gear shift while climbing isn't bad luck - it's poor technique. Thomas and Kelderman crashing wasn't bad luck - it was riding too close to the edge of the road. Yates getting caught behind a crash isn't bad luck, it's a result of consistently poor positioning.

And because it's so often rider error, not luck that has caused these things, it's impossible to expect the peloton to make a judgement call on what or what doesn't merit waiting. They should just race to win at all times.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

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.

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.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

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 of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.

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 bike control and still get taken out by someone else's error. A pattern of crashes is evidence of risky behaviour, bad bike handling or both. An individual crash not directly caused by a rider is mostly luck.

As for racing to win at all times, how about attacking in the feed zone or during generalised natural breaks?

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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 of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.

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?

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.

Feed zones and naturalized breaks should be open game as well, imo. Although if the riders feel it is a strong enough breach of fair play, I'm sure enough teams would hunt down a team trying to take advantage to make it not worth the effort of doing something inthe first place.

The problem is just the inconsistency if 'unwritten rules' are applied to some situations and not others. Especially when most situations are a combination of luck and a rider error in some way. It's impossible to draw a line under what is worth waiting for and what is not. There are so many factors like, are there breaks up the road? Is it in the last kms? Is the race on? Was someone planning to attack there anyway? Was it the riders fault?

The fairest solution is simply to race on as normal at all times (of course, this doesn't mean always attacking the moment someone has a puncture; but it shouldn't mean sitting up either).

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re:

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.

"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)
No rules were broken. Nobody hurt anybody or gained an advantage by interfering with another rider. We're still in the realm of fairness.The current rule book already encompasses everything that's needed for a fair fight.
If your absolutist view (because you're suggesting an absolute view of "reciprocal patetism" every single rider should abide by) has not yet been embraced by the cycling federation and community it means it's not considered useful for the race,it does not provide entertainment, and or no team has proposed a reform on the matter,and/or no consensus has been reached.

There will always be beneficiaries in these circumstances so the majority will always be reticent to change things.
It's a rather quite uncommon problem only GC riders have to face. So it doesn't even concern the majority, and it shoud be treated with the appropriate urgency,namely,close to 0 on the scale of priorities

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

"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.

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

"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 was not negating their existence.

Also, the idea that a kind of,unwritten common rule is present in the peloton,should not prevent the riders to broke the rule, if anything, the contrary

For example,everybody agreed on letting Leon Sanchez winning the Cima Scarponi GPM, on the other hand NOBODY decided to stop because of Dumuolin.
That's why his vision of cycling is idealistic and frankly quite boring

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

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 of the time it's got nothing to do with luck though...They should just race to win at all times.

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?

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.

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.

 

[hrotha]

During WW1 artillery batteries would usually refrain from shelling the enemy's field kitchens because they knew they would retaliate in kind. A certain degree of this always goes on, quite naturally, and any attempts to regulate it will fail.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

"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.

Just to be clear here, realising that some degree of cooperation is necessary around things like general natural breaks, at least if we don't want to create the dampest and worst smelling of all sports, does not imply that everyone must treat every decision of every rider to suddenly stop for a dump as sacred.

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

"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.

as you read my entire two comments you will understand my position
I'm for the "silent collaboration" like in the episode I mentioned (Leon Sanchez) but I don't agree on the need to "normalize", "level" every episode where there's the smell of something unfair happening.
I'm for the "physiological approach"
If the riders,as in the case of Dumoulin's episode,agree on keeping the pace or attack, it's fair to allow them.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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 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.

My argument is simply that the fairest way is to race on in all situations. The more skilled riders will on average suffer less from crashes and mechanicals so shouldn't be penalised for that. It's not a questionof 'everyone get whats coming to them', it's about not having these same discussions about what was morally right and wrong, and whether it was fair, every time there is an incident. The fairest way is for everyone to know exactly where they stand before these situations occur; and the only way to do that is to race on as normal.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

That's what I mean. Why complicate things. Race on at that moment.

I agree on the two occasions of truce: feed zones and not critical moments. Even this second one can lead to confusion at times.