The Deceuninck - Quickstep Thread

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
Like I said; the organisers could have kicked Sagan (or any other rider) out of all their races if it had happened today.
And you just said it yourself:
Sagan made his mistake after one race was over and the next started, so he could have been denied start in the next race (or next race by that organiser).
Keisse made his mistake after one race was over (in this case said race being the Tour of Turkey…) and the next started, that race being, you know, the Vuelta a San Juan, which he - once the incident saw the light of day - was denied start in.
Yes... and the point was, that they didn't boot Sagan. That for a similar offense, one rider is being punished, the other one is not. And you can say, that the world has changed, sure, but it was 6 years ago, not 60. I'm pretty sure it was not ok to grab a girls ass on live tv in much more of a "me-too" setting even 6 years ago. Sagan's action even took place during a race event (podium ceremony) unlike Keisse's. So what was the difference? The outcry on social media. This is simply put, not a correct way to pass judgement over what a rider does outside of a race. And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on what he actually did. I oppose the vagueness of the rule, the randomness of who can invoke it, why and when, pass judgement and set the sentence, based on what an angry mob thinks should happen. Based on what one source claims (him rubbing his junk against her behind) while not waiting for proof and hearing out the other source (no contact). At that point, it didn't even matter anymore. Honestly i'm baffled how anyone can defend this type of "Pollice verso" judgement from ancient Rome. Because by default, if the angry internet mob is big enough, then the organizer has the allibi of invoking the rule based on image damage. One can even wonder, what exactly is needed for such a rule to be used. How much outcry is exactly needed? Which offense warrants the use of it? What if it became known, that a rider votes for a racist political party? Is it enough? By law, he is allowed to do that, but for me personally, it would be a bigger offense than the ill-conceived act of Keisse, which was a spur of the moment, lapse of judgement. While voting for a racist political party, has nothing to do with "spur of the moment", but is a well thought out decision. There are dozens of examples to be given (domestic violence, drunk driving, substance abuse...) and these race organizers, they simply lack the knowledge to interpret such offenses, they aren't judges, so they go by how much of a social outcry there is. Without the need to know the facts, without the need of the actual law, judgement can be passed. Yes, i can not agree with such "rules". And frankly, i 'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can. It has little to do with justice, it is all about PR. We have entered an age, where a known doping offender, who actively damages the image of the entire sport, can still enter races, but a rider who does something stupid outside of the race, can not.

This doesn't mean i think that Keisse should get away with what he did. But we have laws, police and a court for him to get his punnishment. It doesn't mean i think QuickStep did a commendable job handling the situation. They didn't and handled it poorly. I already gave my view on what they should have done (and could have done). And i'd be cool if UCI or some other independent organization gathered an ethics committee, a board of the same people fleshed out this vague and random rule, and sanctioned riders, based on facts, not on social outcry.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
RedheadDane said:
Like I said; the organisers could have kicked Sagan (or any other rider) out of all their races if it had happened today.
And you just said it yourself:
Sagan made his mistake after one race was over and the next started, so he could have been denied start in the next race (or next race by that organiser).
Keisse made his mistake after one race was over (in this case said race being the Tour of Turkey…) and the next started, that race being, you know, the Vuelta a San Juan, which he - once the incident saw the light of day - was denied start in.
Yes... and the point was, that they didn't boot Sagan. That for a similar offense, one rider is being punished, the other one is not. And you can say, that the world has changed, sure, but it was 6 years ago, not 60. I'm pretty sure it was not ok to grab a girls *** on live tv in much more of a "me-too" setting even 6 years ago. Sagan's action even took place during a race event (podium ceremony) unlike Keisse's. So what was the difference? The outcry on social media. This is simply put, not a correct way to pass judgement over what a rider does outside of a race. And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on what he actually did. I oppose the vagueness of the rule, the randomness of who can invoke it, why and when, pass judgement and set the sentence, based on what an angry mob thinks should happen. Based on what one source claims (him rubbing his junk against her behind) while not waiting for proof and hearing out the other source (no contact). At that point, it didn't even matter anymore. Honestly i'm baffled how anyone can defend this type of "Pollice verso" judgement from ancient Rome. Because by default, if the angry internet mob is big enough, then the organizer has the allibi of invoking the rule based on image damage. One can even wonder, what exactly is needed for such a rule to be used. How much outcry is exactly needed? Which offense warrants the use of it? What if it became known, that a rider votes for a racist political party? Is it enough? By law, he is allowed to do that, but for me personally, it would be a bigger offense than the ill-conceived act of Keisse, which was a spur of the moment, lapse of judgement. While voting for a racist political party, has nothing to do with "spur of the moment", but is a well thought out decision. There are dozens of examples to be given (domestic violence, drunk driving, substance abuse...) and these race organizers, they simply lack the knowledge to interpret such offenses, they aren't judges, so they go by how much of a social outcry there is. Without the need to know the facts, without the need of the actual law, judgement can be passed. Yes, i can not agree with such "rules". And frankly, i 'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can. It has little to do with justice, it is all about PR. We have entered an age, where a known doping offender, who actively damages the image of the entire sport, can still enter races, but a rider who does something stupid outside of the race, can not.

This doesn't mean i think that Keisse should get away with what he did. But we have laws, police and a court for him to get his punnishment. It doesn't mean i think QuickStep did a commendable job handling the situation. They didn't and handled it poorly. I already gave my view on what they should have done (and could have done). And i'd be cool if UCI or some other independent organization gathered an ethics committee, a board of the same people fleshed out this vague and random rule, and sanctioned riders, based on facts, not on social outcry.
That was not the difference.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
jmdirt said:
Sorry to jump in without reading the thread (time limit), but Pati had trouble pulling money together to keep his team rolling for 2019 and this type of response will make it more difficult next time. Can you image if the title sponsor and Specialized both move on? Who is going to want to take their place (that also has the required $$).
He had trouble finding a big sponsor, because he wanted a Belgian sponsor and Belgium is a small country. And i doubt a sponsor will move on because a rider, who is likely to quit in one or two years, made a stupid mistake / sexist joke. I can't remember which team Sagan was riding for when he grabbed that girls ***, but i can't remember the sponsor quitting because of that. Can't remember him getting suspended by his team either. But hey, double standards for the win!

myrideissteelerthanyours said:
She was obviously a big fan and they treated her badly that's sad.
She was such a big fan, she didn't know who they were, she didn't even know what the Vuelta a San Juan was.
Huge fan. Huge.
Patrick Lefevere has been around Cycling for over 20 years, and even he should have noticed that most things these days are in the Public Eye, whether it be via Cycling Journos, or bystanders with a phone camera and a FB or Twitter account. Yes he has managed a very successful team for many years now, but that the Sponsorship money is getting harder to find each year (as he recently found) and he needs to consider the expectations of those sponsors when his riders are out showing off the sponsors name.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-deceuninck-quickstep-issue-apology-over-keisse-episode/
In the statement, sent to media under the auspices of 'Patrick Lefevere and the entire team', Deceuninck-QuickStep apologised for "events of the past few days" to the specific woman involved and to all women, fans, and sponsors. The team also pledged to implement "specific conduct training protocols for all riders and staff".

“The Team would like to make a sincere apology for the events of the past few days, firstly to the woman involved in this regrettable incident, and additionally to all women, fans, and sponsors," the team's statement read. "We don’t condone this type of behaviour. Our team’s core values include mutual respect, and that was not upheld in this situation. Iljo also personally acknowledges his mistake and takes full responsibility for his actions.
Better late then never, but if they did this on the day it happened, it would have been a lot better.
 
Okay, I'll one more bit to the whole should he have been thrown out? debate:

If the organisers were so determined that he should be thrown out (and I guess they were, since, well, they threw him out), then they should just have thrown him out as soon as the incident became known. As it is now, it at first appeared as if they let Deceuninck-Quickstep make the decision, and then when they didn't like that choice, they overruled it, like some sort of secret test of character; "Sorry, letting him stay in the race was the wrong choice!"
What if it had been the other way around? And DQ had thrown him out, but the organisers actually wanted him to stay. They couldn't very well force him to stay in the race.

And, Logic, you seem to be looking at it from the direction of; "Sagan wasn't thrown out, neither should Keisse have been". Whereas I look at it from the direction of "Keisse was thrown out, maybe Sagan should have been as well." (meaning thrown out from the next race of said organiser, and if I'm not mistaken that would have been Ghent-Wevelgem, which he won that year.) Instead those organisers thought it was hillarious to refer to the incident in their race-poster the next year… :rolleyes:
Besides, things and opinions can change quite a bit in just six years.
 
Spot on, RedheadDane. Sagan wasn't punished, but maybe he should have been, and the fact that he wasn't definitely doesn't mean Keisse shouldn't be punished either. Looking back, Sagan got away surprisingly easily, but a lot has changed.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
RedheadDane said:
Like I said; the organisers could have kicked Sagan (or any other rider) out of all their races if it had happened today.
And you just said it yourself:
Sagan made his mistake after one race was over and the next started, so he could have been denied start in the next race (or next race by that organiser).
Keisse made his mistake after one race was over (in this case said race being the Tour of Turkey…) and the next started, that race being, you know, the Vuelta a San Juan, which he - once the incident saw the light of day - was denied start in.
Yes... and the point was, that they didn't boot Sagan. That for a similar offense, one rider is being punished, the other one is not. And you can say, that the world has changed, sure, but it was 6 years ago, not 60. I'm pretty sure it was not ok to grab a girls *** on live tv in much more of a "me-too" setting even 6 years ago. Sagan's action even took place during a race event (podium ceremony) unlike Keisse's. So what was the difference? The outcry on social media. This is simply put, not a correct way to pass judgement over what a rider does outside of a race. And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on what he actually did. I oppose the vagueness of the rule, the randomness of who can invoke it, why and when, pass judgement and set the sentence, based on what an angry mob thinks should happen. Based on what one source claims (him rubbing his junk against her behind) while not waiting for proof and hearing out the other source (no contact). At that point, it didn't even matter anymore. Honestly i'm baffled how anyone can defend this type of "Pollice verso" judgement from ancient Rome. Because by default, if the angry internet mob is big enough, then the organizer has the allibi of invoking the rule based on image damage. One can even wonder, what exactly is needed for such a rule to be used. How much outcry is exactly needed? Which offense warrants the use of it? What if it became known, that a rider votes for a racist political party? Is it enough? By law, he is allowed to do that, but for me personally, it would be a bigger offense than the ill-conceived act of Keisse, which was a spur of the moment, lapse of judgement. While voting for a racist political party, has nothing to do with "spur of the moment", but is a well thought out decision. There are dozens of examples to be given (domestic violence, drunk driving, substance abuse...) and these race organizers, they simply lack the knowledge to interpret such offenses, they aren't judges, so they go by how much of a social outcry there is. Without the need to know the facts, without the need of the actual law, judgement can be passed. Yes, i can not agree with such "rules". And frankly, i 'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can. It has little to do with justice, it is all about PR. We have entered an age, where a known doping offender, who actively damages the image of the entire sport, can still enter races, but a rider who does something stupid outside of the race, can not.

This doesn't mean i think that Keisse should get away with what he did. But we have laws, police and a court for him to get his punnishment. It doesn't mean i think QuickStep did a commendable job handling the situation. They didn't and handled it poorly. I already gave my view on what they should have done (and could have done). And i'd be cool if UCI or some other independent organization gathered an ethics committee, a board of the same people fleshed out this vague and random rule, and sanctioned riders, based on facts, not on social outcry.
Not apples to apples, but look at what other sports do. A HUGE example is the NFL because guys get suspended and/or lose their career for domestic violence (outside of the game and beyond the 'legal system'). The NFL, like race organizers, is trying to protect their image (fair and/or legality aren't factors).
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Okay, I'll one more bit to the whole should he have been thrown out? debate:

If the organisers were so determined that he should be thrown out (and I guess they were, since, well, they threw him out), then they should just have thrown him out as soon as the incident became known. As it is now, it at first appeared as if they let Deceuninck-Quickstep make the decision, and then when they didn't like that choice, they overruled it, like some sort of secret test of character; "Sorry, letting him stay in the race was the wrong choice!"
What if it had been the other way around? And DQ had thrown him out, but the organisers actually wanted him to stay. They couldn't very well force him to stay in the race.

And, Logic, you seem to be looking at it from the direction of; "Sagan wasn't thrown out, neither should Keisse have been". Whereas I look at it from the direction of "Keisse was thrown out, maybe Sagan should have been as well." (meaning thrown out from the next race of said organiser, and if I'm not mistaken that would have been Ghent-Wevelgem, which he won that year.) Instead those organisers thought it was hillarious to refer to the incident in their race-poster the next year… :rolleyes:
Besides, things and opinions can change quite a bit in just six years.
The organizers asked for Keisse's team to take some type of disciplinary action and when absolutely nothing occurred, they made their decision to toss him from the event. They may have been happy with any measures that the team management decided upon but maybe saw their complete inaction as a slap in the face and took what many seem to see as drastic measures.
 
Re:

Blanco said:
I wrote it before, and I'll write it again: What Keisse did was worse than what Sagan did! Even without touching the woman! That pose of Keisse was very insulting
I don't necessarily agree but I do think it wasn't less bad just because there was no contact. As you say very insulting and humiliating.
 
Apology was given by the rider but the team was expected to do something to show that they condemn such behavior. Instead they did nothing. They could have removed him from the race. We dont know what was communicated between the team and the organizers but then the organizers decided to remove him. Weinstein represents a major change the attitude of the world.
Similarly Froome was expected to recuse himself from participation till resolution of his case by no less than the leader of UCI. Or at least his team should have. I think a lot of people here wanted the same including myself.
2 indian cricket team players made some derogatory comments about women on national TV. They got kicked out from the team after a lot of adverse media reaction.
Moral punishment expectation tends to be a lot more than actual punishment.
Also while majority of people individually tend to forget the news after some time, it is kept alive by the media and collective memory of the people. The prime eg. being Sagan mentioned above and Valverde's case being mentioned every time he wins a major race.
 
Apr 12, 2017
216
21
3,080
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
RedheadDane said:
lartiste said:
Koronin said:
RedheadDane said:
^Unless, of course, the women of said clinic would feel a bit apprehensive about being around a guy seen engaging in such behaviour...

Although what he did was more sexual harassment than actual assault. Unfortunately almost all women have been the victims of sexual harassment. Now granted there are degrees of sexual harassment as well and this wasn't the worst, by far. The worst are the ones intentionally doing it.
The first problem is what actually constitute sexual harassment. In Europe the understanding would be in my experience very different than in US. But, OK, even according to wikipedia "Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature".

Was it coercion? Coercion to do what? Was it bullying, bullying about which she did not know? It makes no sense, stupid joke yes, sexual harassment no. Assault, may be try to understand what constitute assault. Assault is something very different part of which is without any doubt oral or physical attack with sufficient intensity.

Second is that even the women behaved strangely she poke her but to cyclist, do not understand what she was actually doing.

Usually I am enjoying your comments but reading this discussion, it only supports european point of view on people from US - you will die out, because it will be to legally risky to make any contact with woman. :rolleyes:
Just ask. That's not illegal.
Btw, was that comment aimed at me, or Koronin? Coz we're on different sides of the pond, and judging by her(?) reply further down it looks like we agree.

girls taking a photo - gravity intensifies suddenly :D
So there was a woman that wanted to take a picture. Fine.
She goes standing in front of the guys. Fine.
She then goes standing in this position, pointing her ass more towards Keisse.
Keisse thinks "hehe this is a funny position", and overreacts a bit by making a sexist pose. Ok, not fine, but come on ... this isn't nowhere near what #metoo should be about. Give him a fine, make sure he apologizes, and move on already.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
RedheadDane said:
Okay, I'll one more bit to the whole should he have been thrown out? debate:

If the organisers were so determined that he should be thrown out (and I guess they were, since, well, they threw him out), then they should just have thrown him out as soon as the incident became known. As it is now, it at first appeared as if they let Deceuninck-Quickstep make the decision, and then when they didn't like that choice, they overruled it, like some sort of secret test of character; "Sorry, letting him stay in the race was the wrong choice!"
What if it had been the other way around? And DQ had thrown him out, but the organisers actually wanted him to stay. They couldn't very well force him to stay in the race.

And, Logic, you seem to be looking at it from the direction of; "Sagan wasn't thrown out, neither should Keisse have been". Whereas I look at it from the direction of "Keisse was thrown out, maybe Sagan should have been as well." (meaning thrown out from the next race of said organiser, and if I'm not mistaken that would have been Ghent-Wevelgem, which he won that year.) Instead those organisers thought it was hillarious to refer to the incident in their race-poster the next year… :rolleyes:
Besides, things and opinions can change quite a bit in just six years.
The organizers asked for Keisse's team to take some type of disciplinary action and when absolutely nothing occurred, they made their decision to toss him from the event. They may have been happy with any measures that the team management decided upon but maybe saw their complete inaction as a slap in the face and took what many seem to see as drastic measures.
Then it appears to be an issue with the communication; DQ thinking that the punishment from the court (fine) was enough, and the organiser obviously not.
The whole threatening to pull out, and boycotting the podium-ceremony was wrong, but I can kind of understand if they felt a little; "Wait a minute… wasn't this case solved? Finished?"
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
lartiste said:
Koronin said:
RedheadDane said:
^Unless, of course, the women of said clinic would feel a bit apprehensive about being around a guy seen engaging in such behaviour...

Although what he did was more sexual harassment than actual assault. Unfortunately almost all women have been the victims of sexual harassment. Now granted there are degrees of sexual harassment as well and this wasn't the worst, by far. The worst are the ones intentionally doing it.
The first problem is what actually constitute sexual harassment. In Europe the understanding would be in my experience very different than in US. But, OK, even according to wikipedia "Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature".

Was it coercion? Coercion to do what? Was it bullying, bullying about which she did not know? It makes no sense, stupid joke yes, sexual harassment no. Assault, may be try to understand what constitute assault. Assault is something very different part of which is without any doubt oral or physical attack with sufficient intensity.

Second is that even the women behaved strangely she poke her but to cyclist, do not understand what she was actually doing.

Usually I am enjoying your comments but reading this discussion, it only supports european point of view on people from US - you will die out, because it will be to legally risky to make any contact with woman. :rolleyes:

This very well may be a cultural difference. There are plenty of ways to interact with members of the opposite sex without having any issues at all. What he was doing was not one of those. The biggest reason sexual harassment is because he's objectifying her by his actions even if that was not his intent.
I agree with you and disagree at the same moment. The problem of current society (catholic, western, US + EU, however we call it is) effort to push everyone to behave politely and correctly all the time. I remember last year when some Froome fans were calling people who were saying that booing on him is abuse. I do not want to compare both cases, because in my humble opinion booing is just demonstration of freedom of expression, but it has something in common. It is the way we treat people we do not agree with.

Try to see it from other perspective. You turn back to group of guys in their twenties to have a photo with them. What do you expect the outcome will be? Try it. I am saying it as guy in forties who is time to time doing sport with youngsters ... . Even I would never make such mistake like to turn back to my young friends when we are doing photos :lol: .

What I want to say it is stupidity, never ever assault. Because if it is assault then it would be also murder with same seriousness. And it is not even sexual harassment. In legal point of view the difference between different categories in many instances is the outcome or intensity.

And final question is - might a woman be sexually harassed without even knowing it? What is the definition of sexual harassment then?
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
lartiste said:
Koronin said:
RedheadDane said:
^Unless, of course, the women of said clinic would feel a bit apprehensive about being around a guy seen engaging in such behaviour...

Although what he did was more sexual harassment than actual assault. Unfortunately almost all women have been the victims of sexual harassment. Now granted there are degrees of sexual harassment as well and this wasn't the worst, by far. The worst are the ones intentionally doing it.
The first problem is what actually constitute sexual harassment. In Europe the understanding would be in my experience very different than in US. But, OK, even according to wikipedia "Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature".

Was it coercion? Coercion to do what? Was it bullying, bullying about which she did not know? It makes no sense, stupid joke yes, sexual harassment no. Assault, may be try to understand what constitute assault. Assault is something very different part of which is without any doubt oral or physical attack with sufficient intensity.

Second is that even the women behaved strangely she poke her but to cyclist, do not understand what she was actually doing.

Usually I am enjoying your comments but reading this discussion, it only supports european point of view on people from US - you will die out, because it will be to legally risky to make any contact with woman. :rolleyes:
Anyone who thinks that should probably just keep away from women for good to be honest.
To be honest I was considering that it is not appropriate for administrator to react with personal remarks. Later I was considering some personal remarks too, but I do not want to sink to your level.

Just small remark - when you want pick up a girl/woman, than bantering is definitely part of the game (ok, may be not if you are IT guy :lol: ). Some times there is very thin line between bantering and harassment, the words and/or body language would be very similar, the difference is only the way she takes it. Think about it.
 
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
Koronin said:
lartiste said:
Koronin said:
RedheadDane said:
^Unless, of course, the women of said clinic would feel a bit apprehensive about being around a guy seen engaging in such behaviour...

Although what he did was more sexual harassment than actual assault. Unfortunately almost all women have been the victims of sexual harassment. Now granted there are degrees of sexual harassment as well and this wasn't the worst, by far. The worst are the ones intentionally doing it.
The first problem is what actually constitute sexual harassment. In Europe the understanding would be in my experience very different than in US. But, OK, even according to wikipedia "Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature".

Was it coercion? Coercion to do what? Was it bullying, bullying about which she did not know? It makes no sense, stupid joke yes, sexual harassment no. Assault, may be try to understand what constitute assault. Assault is something very different part of which is without any doubt oral or physical attack with sufficient intensity.

Second is that even the women behaved strangely she poke her but to cyclist, do not understand what she was actually doing.

Usually I am enjoying your comments but reading this discussion, it only supports european point of view on people from US - you will die out, because it will be to legally risky to make any contact with woman. :rolleyes:

This very well may be a cultural difference. There are plenty of ways to interact with members of the opposite sex without having any issues at all. What he was doing was not one of those. The biggest reason sexual harassment is because he's objectifying her by his actions even if that was not his intent.
I agree with you and disagree at the same moment. The problem of current society (catholic, western, US + EU, however we call it is) effort to push everyone to behave politely and correctly all the time. I remember last year when some Froome fans were calling people who were saying that booing on him is abuse. I do not want to compare both cases, because in my humble opinion booing is just demonstration of freedom of expression, but it has something in common. It is the way we treat people we do not agree with.

Try to see it from other perspective. You turn back to group of guys in their twenties to have a photo with them. What do you expect the outcome will be? Try it. I am saying it as guy in forties who is time to time doing sport with youngsters ... . Even I would never make such mistake like to turn back to my young friends when we are doing photos :lol: .

What I want to say it is stupidity, never ever assault. Because if it is assault then it would be also murder with same seriousness. And it is not even sexual harassment. In legal point of view the difference between different categories in many instances is the outcome or intensity.

And final question is - might a woman be sexually harassed without even knowing it? What is the definition of sexual harassment then?

Two problems, the rider in question is in his mid 30's and I would expect more maturity from him. The next being I never said it was assault. My opinion is that is or at least could be looked at as harassment, but not assault. Groping, catcalling, etc are most definitely sexual harassment. I think it's more a push to behave with respect towards others. What he did at the very least is exceptionally disrespectful to the woman.

Now as to why she is at the end of the group for the picture, I have no clue. As for the bunny ears that one of the riders (possibly Remco) did, is a stupid joke. May not be funny to everyone, but also isn't going to get someone in trouble.
 
"Just small remark - when you want pick up a girl/woman, than bantering is definitely part of the game (ok, may be not if you are IT guy ). Some times there is very thin line between bantering and harassment, the words and/or body language would be very similar, the difference is only the way she takes it. Think about it."

He feigned a sexual act, behind her, out of her view, with a pose that was humiliating to her ... a pose which feigned a sexual act being delivered as a smug performance with no love or compassion for the recipient.

The admin was correct ... and his remarks weren't personal, they were aimed at anyone who holds such abhorrent views.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Spot on, RedheadDane. Sagan wasn't punished, but maybe he should have been, and the fact that he wasn't definitely doesn't mean Keisse shouldn't be punished either. Looking back, Sagan got away surprisingly easily, but a lot has changed.
Ok, as the Sagan incident keeps being brought into it maybe its not generally known but Sagan was friends with that young lady, she never made any official complaint and quite happily shared a podium with him at a later race. You can go back and forth about how silly it was for him to do it but what Keisse did was totally inappropriate. Over and out.
 
Re: Re:

sprints n stones said:
LaFlorecita said:
Spot on, RedheadDane. Sagan wasn't punished, but maybe he should have been, and the fact that he wasn't definitely doesn't mean Keisse shouldn't be punished either. Looking back, Sagan got away surprisingly easily, but a lot has changed.
Ok, as the Sagan incident keeps being brought into it maybe its not generally known but Sagan was friends with that young lady, she never made any official complaint and quite happily shared a podium with him at a later race. You can go back and forth about how silly it was for him to do it but what Keisse did was totally inappropriate. Over and out.
Didn't know they'd been friends before that incident, but that they became friendly after he apologised, and she forgave him.
 
Re: Re:

sprints n stones said:
LaFlorecita said:
Spot on, RedheadDane. Sagan wasn't punished, but maybe he should have been, and the fact that he wasn't definitely doesn't mean Keisse shouldn't be punished either. Looking back, Sagan got away surprisingly easily, but a lot has changed.
Ok, as the Sagan incident keeps being brought into it maybe its not generally known but Sagan was friends with that young lady, she never made any official complaint and quite happily shared a podium with him at a later race. You can go back and forth about how silly it was for him to do it but what Keisse did was totally inappropriate. Over and out.
He wasn't. She ofcourse knew him. But she didn't turn around and give him a slap across the face because she was working and she said "I kept focussing on the job". He later apologised and they later appeared on a foto together. And yes they did share a podium cause she was still working as a podium miss.
 
Re: Re:

GenericBoonenFan said:
sprints n stones said:
LaFlorecita said:
Spot on, RedheadDane. Sagan wasn't punished, but maybe he should have been, and the fact that he wasn't definitely doesn't mean Keisse shouldn't be punished either. Looking back, Sagan got away surprisingly easily, but a lot has changed.
Ok, as the Sagan incident keeps being brought into it maybe its not generally known but Sagan was friends with that young lady, she never made any official complaint and quite happily shared a podium with him at a later race. You can go back and forth about how silly it was for him to do it but what Keisse did was totally inappropriate. Over and out.
He wasn't. She ofcourse knew him. But she didn't turn around and give him a slap across the face because she was working and she said "I kept focussing on the job". He later apologised and they later appeared on a foto together. And yes they did share a podium cause she was still working as a podium miss.
So, cool professionalism rather than actual friendship?
---

About DQ; the Danish commentators mentioned that the team had basically been removed from all official San Juan social media. However, I was glad to see that - as per the team's own social media - the spectator's didn't let Keisse's shitty behaviour affect their view on Evenepoel.
That kid's pretty popular.
 
If Jakobsen and Hodeg continue to progress, there might be some clash regarding sprinters ambitions in the team in the future. With both of them having long-term contracts, there might not be room for another top sprinter in the team if they both come good, and they have a good chace knowing the team's record of taking sprinters to the next level, so maybe Viviani is expected to leave somewhere in the near future, despite his Deceuninck - QS stint being a great success so far?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY