Timeout for a newbie question

[Seemuller]

How is it possible that Garzelli was considered the overall champion before the race was over? If Scarponi and Garzelli were tied... why couldn't Scarponi just race the rest of the final stage and make sure that he finished before Garzelli? Thus, making his time up. I guess what I'm asking is why didn't the rest of the race matter to Scarponi after Garzelli took 3rd in the next to last sprint stage? Couldn't Scarponi make up the time by finishing before Garzelli in the end? Again, newbie question.

 

[Bala Verde]

He could, in theory.

However, the parcours wasn't suited to his abilities, and favored sprinters over any other type of rider. Since Scarponi is not a pure sprinter - like Cavendish or Pettachi - it was extremely unlikely for him to be competitive in the end phase of the race. There was no way he could beat some of the sprinters, or disrupt a sprint set-up and land himself a 1-3 spot.

Garzelli only had to stick to Scarponi's wheel to not lose any time, and in this scenario, it is sheer impossible to drop someone, given that the parcourse was flat as a pancake. The only thing that could have realistically held Garzelli from taking first, was perhaps accident.

Therefore, the race for overall victory was decided by time bonus seconds.

 

[El Imbatido]

Also if the bunch finishes together and there are no gaps in it everyone gets the same time even if the bunch is 30m long or 100m long even though in reality several seconds may have passed. So Scarponi could finish 12th on the stage and Garzelli could finish 63rd but they would still get the same time on the stage if there were no gaps in the bunch. I think this was brought in to stop the chaos that would occur if every single rider tried to be a the front a one time.

 

[Seemuller]

That definitely answers my question. So Scarponi is not known as a sprinter, eh? Thanks!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Also if the bunch finishes together and there are no gaps in it everyone gets the same time even if the bunch is 30m long or 100m long even though in reality several seconds may have passed. So Scarponi could finish 12th on the stage and Garzelli could finish 63rd but they would still get the same time on the stage if there were no gaps in the bunch. I think this was brought in to stop the chaos that would occur if every single rider tried to be a the front a one time.

Actually according to CN the GC was decided by stage placings to break the tie. So the flat stages where Garzelli was finishing 12th and Scarponi was finishing 63rd was what made the difference in the end.

 

[ingsve]

How is it possible that Garzelli was considered the overall champion before the race was over?

He wasn't. He was put forward as the virtual leader of the race to reflect the changes due to time bonuses but at no point was he considered the winner before they all finished the race.

Eventhough it was a flat finish and no realsitic chance for Scarponi to gain back more time there could still be accidents that could cause Garzelli to not finishs the race for example so there is no way to determine the actual winner before it's all over.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

I would still love to see a rider trying to win a GC in the last, flat stage (eg. attack on the champs élysées, when you're only 4s behind )

 

[issoisso]

I would still love to see a rider trying to win a GC in the last, flat stage (eg. attack on the champs élysées, when you're only 4s behind )

Not for the GC win, but for 5th place. Vinokourov, 2005 Tour

 

[Armchair cyclist]

I would still love to see a rider trying to win a GC in the last, flat stage (eg. attack on the champs élysées, when you're only 4s behind )

Pedro Delgado, with a 40' deficit, had a go on the Champs Elysées in '87, but stood little to no chance.