Stage 16: Ponte Di Legno-Val Martello/Martelltal (139 km)

Page 103 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
King Boonen said:
Do you mean why throw them out? I'm under the belief that a red flag means stop racing and stay behind this bike. If I'm right and they disobeyed that, bye bye.
See this I can understand. If they broke the rules, they need to be thrown out.

The arbitrary time penalty is ridiculous.

Thats why we need a strong independent sports regulator, so we don't get a "negotiated" solution in these types of situations.
 
May 25, 2009
403
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
Yes, let's stop only Quintana, and do nothing about the 8-10 other guys who also didn't ride a pretend neutralized descent. That sounds fair. :rolleyes:
Well, supposedly their teams agreed too, so they can stop with him or whatever. Though aside from Rolland and Hesjedal, I don't think anyone cares.

Personally I think the result should stand, I'm just suggesting a solution if the teams are so intend on messing with things.
 
I'll just point out again that, at least from what I can find, there is no mention of what a red flag waved in front of a rider does or does not mean in the UCI Road Race regulations. I believe that the onus of communicating what on-road signals and signs means is on the organizers and the individual commissaires on a race by race basis.

In this case, according to what was communicated over race radio, what the red flag seems to have meant is "maintain your position" or "no attacks."
 
damian13ster said:
Not according to race radio which clearly states not to overtake the moto....
Fair enough.

We are obviously not being given enough information but it seems easy. If the race was neutralised, they're out. If not then people can quit their whining.


Lets replace Quintana with Froome and see if people still feel the same way...
 
King Boonen said:
Fair enough.

We are obviously not being given enough information but it seems easy. If the race was neutralised, they're out. If not then people can quit their whining.


Lets replace Quintana with Froome and see if people still feel the same way...
Which brings us back to:

 
King Boonen said:
Fair enough.

We are obviously not being given enough information but it seems easy. If the race was neutralised, they're out. If not then people can quit their whining.


Lets replace Quintana with Froome and see if people still feel the same way...
Are you reading our posts? :rolleyes:
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
The sad thing is in the end there will be no satisfactory solution.. if you take 30 or 60 or 90 seconds from Quintana, Rolland and Hesjedal, well you are penalising the guys that have attacked and made the race what it was, you are penalising riders who take initiatives, even when the situation is confused and confusing, AND you have penalised the riders who chose to ride in what wher very hard but raceable circumstances : there have been no falls, the decent was wet but practicable. This stage might have been colder in terms of absolute temperature, but it was no worse than the Peyragudes stage in the Vuelta where icy rain after having raced in the very hot spanish south wrecked havoc on the field and forced a guy like Basso to drop out.

This means that you give the "moral victory" to the guys who want to make the sport completely predictable. From an emotion point of view as the organiser, penalising the attackers goes against all what you wish for.

But on the other hand when you tell teams that the descent will be controled with bikes with red flags and that they therefore descend all relaxed, well it is legitimate that they complain when others overtake the motorbikes and keep riding...

There will be no satisfying solution.

And let's be clear, all the DSs arent' complaining about Quintana. Even OPQS doesn't mind too much about Quintana because yesterday's last climb showed it was going to be really hard. no the ones all the DSs of AG2R, Belkin, Saxo, Astana and BMC are after are Rolland and Hesjedal, because now noone is racing for 1st, they are all racing for the podium. So they want rivals from the podium or top 5 further away. They want Rolland and Hesjedal to get those 30/60/90 seconds taken away because that means 2 rivals for the podium further down. Human but very cynical.

I would find very annoying that a Majka who has been sucking wheels for 2 and half weeks benefits from a confusing situation while Rolland who has attacked 4 out of 5 mountain stages (!!!) and Hesjedal twice get penalised for having attacked.

In the end there will be no fair solution. If you want to be cynical, the current GC situation is brilliant for the organiser. Sure Quintana has it wrapped up, but there is going to be a never heard of battle for the podium between 8 riders !

From a personal point of view I wouldn't change the times because, except when the race clearly forbids this or that, there should be an implicit rule of "benefit the attacking riders". But there won't be any satisfying solution anyway.
 
That statement by the Giro is fairly lame and I don't think it settles anything. "The race radio - the official venue through which we communicate everything to the teams and other cars - gave the wrong instructions. We refuse to acknowledge that it's our job to fix the resulting screw-up."
 
cineteq said:
Are you reading our posts? :rolleyes:
Yes, are you reading what you are posting?

The first paragraph says that it was an inaccurate interpretation by race radio.

The second paragraph does not state whether riders were instructed to remain behind the motorcycles. It says guarantee rider safety. Surely you can only do that by stopping them racing? How else can you guarantee it?

The third paragraph states neutralisation was not stated by the radio. But if you stop them racing for the top hairpins that's neutralisation. If you don't you can't guarantee rider safety. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.


So what was the inaccurate interpretation? Surely it's either stay behind the motorcycles or you don't have to stay behind the motorcycles. How did they try to guarantee safety without stopping them racing?

Not enough information.

Edit:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Seeing as rudeness is obviously the order of the day.
 
Apr 16, 2009
157
0
8,830
christopherrowe said:
I'll just point out again that, at least from what I can find, there is no mention of what a red flag waved in front of a rider does or does not mean in the UCI Road Race regulations. I believe that the onus of communicating what on-road signals and signs means is on the organizers and the individual commissaires on a race by race basis.
This was also mentioned by swedish eurosport during today's broadcast.

In this case, according to what was communicated over race radio, what the red flag seems to have meant is "maintain your position" or "no attacks."
From the statement from RCS it appears that what they meant was to use the motorbikes as "visibility helpers"...
 
Just so we're all on the page, this is the "Race Incidents" regulation, rule 2.2.029 of the UCI manual.
In case of an accident or incident that could impinge upon the normal conduct of a race in general or a particular stage thereof, race director may, after obtaining the agreement of the commissaires' panel and having informed the timekeepers, at any moment, decide:

• to modify the course,
• to temporarily neutralize the race or stage,
• to declare a stage null and voice,
• to cancel part of a stage as well as the results of any possible intermediate classifications and to restart the stage near the place of the incident,
• to let the results stand or
• to restart the race or stage, taking account of the gaps recorded at the moment of the incident.
What's most interesting to me is the number of people who have to be involved and informed of any potential neutralization. The organizer decides, but the commissaires must agree and the timekeepers must be informed. So a lot of people in the race organization and among the UCI appointed officials would have had to have known about a neutralization.

Note also that one option open to the organizers (presumably with the agreement of the commissaires) is to "let the results stand." That seems to be what's happening here.
 
Sep 4, 2013
135
0
0
Did anyone catch what quintana just said. They also asked fabio aru about not congratulating quintana. What did he say?
 
King Boonen said:
Yes, are you reading what you are posting?

The first paragraph says that it was an inaccurate interpretation by race radio.

The second paragraph does not state whether riders were instructed to remain behind the motorcycles. It says guarantee rider safety. Surely you can only do that by stopping them racing? How else can you guarantee it?

The third paragraph states neutralisation was not stated by the radio. But if you stop them racing for the top hairpins that's neutralisation. If you don't you can't guarantee rider safety. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.


So what was the inaccurate interpretation? Surely it's either stay behind the motorcycles or you don't have to stay behind the motorcycles. How did they try to guarantee safety without stopping them racing?

Not enough information.

Edit:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Seeing as rudeness is obviously the order of the day.
Just listen to the race radio recording before making an argument like that.
 
Sep 4, 2013
135
0
0
Piz Buin said:
Did anyone catch what quintana just said. They also asked fabio aru about not congratulating quintana. What did he say?
Did nobody watch RAI ?

They're still discussing yesterday
 
This is how I'm understanding the "controversy".
UCI cycling regulation, page 8, paragraph 2.2.015
paragraph 2.2.016
The organiser shall have an inspection vehicle lead the race to point out any possible obstacles.

On the page 36, in the paragraph 2.3.046, there's a diagram of the race convoy.

So, my conclusion is that the red flag, which is a warning sign (and just a call for caution), was on an information motorcycle.
Everything else is just apprehension of the fair-play.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY