Teams & Riders The official Egan Bernal is the new Egan Bernal thread

[Escarabajo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493664187234635776

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493664187234635776

I hope that he is not going too fast as to not damage anything. But I cannot deny to see him working so hard to come back like this.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

For this reason to call him "irresponsible" or "reckless," which implies willful intent without the help of external forces, is ludicrous and absurd.

If you conflate recklessness with intent, then your reaction to comments here is understandable. But the implication you draw is linguistically and legally erroneous.

 

[tobydawq]

I hope that he is not going too fast as to not damage anything. But I cannot deny to see him working so hard to come back like this.

By this rate he will be ready to start his season in Paris-Nice

Nah, I guess he still can't walk but he definitely seems to be doing a lot better than we could have hoped.

 

[Nirvana]

By this rate he will be ready to start his season in Paris-Nice

Nah, I guess he still can't walk but he definitely seems to be doing a lot better than we could have hoped.

Are you sure this is doing better and not rushing things? He had his last spinal surgery just two weeks ago...

 

[Extinction]

If you conflate recklessness with intent, then your reaction to comments here is understandable. But the implication you draw is linguistically and legally erroneous.

You could be right legally, I don't know, but legal philosophy has its own logic; linguistically no, otherwise you could say he was just looking for trouble, which he clearly was not. And so my reaction is concerned with intention, yes, but also the confluence of internal and external circumstances.

 

[Zoef-Lightning]

Agreed. Naturally it is of the first and highest order, and in a rider's best interest, to look up the road. It was a horrific mistake not to an the part of Bernal in the moments leading to the crash. However, there is a currently a big problem, which is the point I was trying to make. His mistake wasn't made independently of the external forces at work, namely his need to apply maximally the science of aerdynamics. So let's say his "natural responsibility" to look up the road came into conflict with his "performance responsibility" (a terrible predicament), which is what he is contracted and gets paid to do. Under team investment and direction he is required to practice holding his optimal low-drag time trial position throughout a simulated Tour effort. Pidcock's concerns were all about this unfortunate paradox in modern cycling: the imbalance between performance and safety. That is, being expected to handle ever more radical time trial positions and get the most performance benefit, while maintaing adequite control and environmental awareness.

For this reason I suggested the UCI establish new protocals, since, as Bernal's crash painfully attests, in today's cycling you can't expect a rider to give total commitment to the science of current time trial praxis and always be looking up the road at the same time. One excludes the other (without even taking into account errare humanum est), a terrible disaccord for riders paid to perform at the highest level. For this reason to call him "irresponsible" or "reckless," which implies willful intent without the help of external forces, is ludicrous and absurd.

OK. Mister banned. The more you react, the more pathetic your comments become. Look at the moving images of the accident. His speed..... on a public road..... without looking ahead.... without being able to brake quickly. Total madness. If there had been a child or an old person ......
Read the reactions here. Read the reactions of Pidcock, Froome and other riders. It takes some courage to admit you're wrong. But keep claiming it was an accident, coincidental and one-off.... Luckily most cycling enthusiasts testify of more sense, so that a discussion can start.
Oh, by the way. Confirming your inaccuracy and ignorance over and over by writing a long and confused epistle, again and again, will not help you any further. And certainly not the interest of cycling.

 

[Jungle Cycle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493949420571959303

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493949420571959303

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Zoef-Lightning

IMHO it would be reckless if children would play on a (four) two lane road. Or if a group of elderly people would organize a bowling session over there. Still if somehow they would do that. In that case i still wouldn't go as far as you did, when talking about Bernal.

 

[CyclistAbi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493949420571959303

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493949420571959303

Still has some belly fat to lose?

 

[CyclistAbi]

Let's leave it at that shall we?

 

[Bonimenier]

Let's leave it at that shall we?

Not gonna happen with those two.

 

[Cookster15]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493949420571959303

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493949420571959303

Physique of a climber . Good to read of his progress, if he can turn the pedals so soon that is cause for optimism, But obviously he has a long journey ahead.

Not sure if its been mentioned but when would Ineos start to get impatient with his recovery as they did prior to effectively unloading Froome via contract renegotiations? Business can be cruel.

 

[Cookster15]

I hope that he is not going too fast as to not damage anything. But I cannot deny to see him working so hard to come back like this.

If fans find it difficult to be optimistic then imagine the torment in his mind. Obviously I am not a doctor but I think this is positive news as long as his doctors closely monitor his rehabilitation whilst his body repairs itself.

 

[Sciatic]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493949420571959303

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493949420571959303

The dog is clearly thinking “Are you really sure you should be doing this yet?”

 

[Escarabajo]

If fans find it difficult to be optimistic then imagine the torment in his mind. Obviously I am not a doctor but I think this is positive news as long as his doctors closely monitor his rehabilitation whilst his body repairs itself.

Oh no, I am very optimistic. But I am freaking out at the same time after all the posts and information that I read after the accident. Hope everything goes well. From the beginning it really looked like the Doctors had a lot of practice in these type of accidents and I wrote it here. But still, I get a little nervous when I see how fast he is recovering. That's all!

 

[tristecsinamigos]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493949420571959303

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493949420571959303

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493664187234635776

View: https://twitter.com/JUAN_SE_CHARRY/status/1493664187234635776

He only listens to raeggaton? Ugh...

 

[Extinction]

OK. Mister banned. The more you react, the more pathetic your comments become. Look at the moving images of the accident. His speed..... on a public road..... without looking ahead.... without being able to brake quickly. Total madness. If there had been a child or an old person ......
Read the reactions here. Read the reactions of Pidcock, Froome and other riders. It takes some courage to admit you're wrong. But keep claiming it was an accident, coincidental and one-off.... Luckily most cycling enthusiasts testify of more sense, so that a discussion can start.
Oh, by the way. Confirming your inaccuracy and ignorance over and over by writing a long and confused epistle, again and again, will not help you any further. And certainly not the interest of cycling.

Top o'the morning to ya! Pure delirium. Curiously again you address none of the issues I've raised, but state the same derogatory nonsense over and over. And you are the one confused over the intention of Pidcock and Froome concerning the Bernal incident, not me. For it wasn't to criticize Bernal, but the modern demands of performance being in conflict with a rider's job safely. Indeed Froome went so far as to ponder whether or not it would be proper to ban time trial bikes althogether. So the more you keep on harping about it in continuous and total error, the more you look like a blockhead.

Now it has taken me a Philippic to try and clarify things for your rudimentary thinking, but alas it was all to no avail. I only see a conceited cycling enthusisast terstifying to nothing but self-rightious mumbo jumbo, without compunction or restraint. True, it's difficult to admit one's errors, but I asked myself was it really necessary to go this far?

Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Cheerio!

PS: Addressing someone whilst the person is banned in the manner you did, is like punching someone with their hands tied. Weak.

 

[Kazistuta]

Couldn't you perhaps get a private room to juke it out, since it's apparently important to get the last word? Currently you're contributing nothing to this forum, why don't you leave this thread and let the others discuss Bernals actual recovery?

 

[Extinction]

Couldn't you perhaps get a private room to juke it out, since it's apparently important to get the last word? Currently you're contributing nothing to this forum, why don't you leave this thread and let the others discuss Bernals actual recovery?

Nobody is preventing you or anybody else from discussing anything. I will respond to those who engage me as I please. It has nothing to do with getting the last word, but only responding to a criticism. And I couldn't care less about getting in the last word. In fact, I have nothing further to state on the matter.

 

[RedheadDane]

Look at the moving images of the accident. His speed..... on a public road..... without looking ahead.... without being able to brake quickly. Total madness. If there had been a child or an old person ......

You keep saying that. But... what if he had died? We don't have to go that far back in time to find a case where someone died, and it turned that... he actually had the responsibility to check that the road was clear.
So, "Don't speak ill of the dead", but what about "Don't speak ill of the badly wounded"?

But keep claiming it was an accident, coincidental and one-off....

Of course it was an accident! Not like he smashed into a parked bus on purpose... And not like the bus driver deliberately stopped in front of him either.
And I sure hope it'll be an one-off incident!

But of course, as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread, there seem to be a tendency towards not realising that something is/could be an issue until there is a serious accident. For how long have riders been trying on their TT bikes like that, out on the public roads, and no one thought it could be a problem? Probably quite a while...

 

[Netserk]

You keep saying that. But... what if he had died? We don't have to go that far back in time to find a case where someone died, and it turned that... he actually had the responsibility to check that the road was clear.
So, "Don't speak ill of the dead", but what about "Don't speak ill of the badly wounded"?



Of course it was an accident! Not like he smashed into a parked bus on purpose... And not like the bus driver deliberately stopped in front of him either.
And I sure hope it'll be an one-off incident!

But of course, as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread, there seem to be a tendency towards not realising that something is/could be an issue until there is a serious accident. For how long have riders been trying on their TT bikes like that, out on the public roads, and no one thought it could be a problem? Probably quite a while...

Well, we should speak more ill of the dead.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You keep saying that. But... what if he had died? We don't have to go that far back in time to find a case where someone died, and it turned that... he actually had the responsibility to check that the road was clear.
So, "Don't speak ill of the dead", but what about "Don't speak ill of the badly wounded"?

There would have been an inquest, and I would be fairly sure that, in UK terms, it would have been considered death by misadventure rather than accidental death.
No-one is trying to speak ill of Bernal's character, but if one cannot be permitted to discuss the possibility of inadvisable conduct leading to the accident, how can it be analysed? Can we not say that van der Poel was daft to try to ride down what should have been a jump in the Olympic MTB because it agravated his back condition?

Of course it was an accident! Not like he smashed into a parked bus on purpose... And not like the bus driver deliberately stopped in front of him either.

Which is why we are talking about recklessness rather than intent. But if anyone is suggesting that he was not reckless, I would challenge them to state what steps they think he took to mitigate the inherent danger in what he was doing.

We are all greatly relieved that he is apparently recovering well, just as we are all saddened by those for whom it has had a tragic outcome. It is in the interests of teams (and of the riders' performance) that they train as effectively as possible, but in following the directions given by their bosses, it is the riders' responsibility to make the decisions about how they acheive that within the concrete situation around them.
That is pretty much the definition of professionalism.

 

[RedheadDane]

Which is why we are talking about recklessness rather than intent.

Surely, claiming that it wasn't accidental implies intent...
Yes, it was reckless - by Bernal himself, by the team - and that caused the accident. However, what I'm saying - what I've been saying this whole time - is that this conversation has come too late, and now the first concern should be Bernal's recovery.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I think that recklessness sits in that space between accident and intent: the failure to take precautions to deal with foreseeable, but unintended, circumstances.

The most urgent concern is Bernal's recovery, but only a handful of people can actively concern themselves with that (and it seems to have passed beyond urgent now, thankfully). The most important concern (because it is to do with a considerable number of people putting themselves in danger) is that lessons are learned about what is and is not safe training, and that the riders are given agency over that which compromises their own safety.

 

[RedheadDane]

I think that recklessness sits in that space between accident and intent: the failure to take precautions to deal with foreseeable, but unintended, circumstances.

The most urgent concern is Bernal's recovery, but only a handful of people can actively concern themselves with that (and it seems to have passed beyond urgent now, thankfully). The most important concern (because it is to do with a considerable number of people putting themselves in danger) is that lessons are learned about what is and is not safe training, and that the riders are given agency over that which compromises their own safety.

I guess I just consider accident to be anything that wasn't done with purpose. Sometimes - quite frequently, I guess - accidents are just caused by lack of thinking.
I wouldn't even call it reckelessness in the same way it would be reckless to drive a quad bike down a skijumping slope (please do not attempt!), it was just... well... not realising that something was a possible consequence of an action. Because, was it really that foreseeable? TT training out on the roads is nothing new, most of the time nothing has happened. This one times, unfortunately, a bus stopped in front of a rider. In fact, you could even argue that it wouldn't even have mattered if he'd frequently been looking up to check that the road was clear, or even been looking up most of the time; he was looking down at the most critical moment.

Also, I still think that the most important concern in the Bernal thread is, well, Bernal. Sure, none of us - afaik - can actively do anything about his recovery, but we can still express worry, sympathy, and now even admiration: He's frikkin' back on a (stationary) bike already!