Tom 'Pidders' Pidcock

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
His road campaign is on hold until the late summer; he's now concentrating on trying to qualifying for the Olympic MTB race.
I'm wondering how he'll get on now as an Elite MTB racer; this weekend will be the first indicator. He's actually done very few races compared to everyone else. How good is he technically when the pressure is on? Being good on a CX course means nothing when it comes to a XC course.
Technically he's a great bike handler. It will be interesting to see what he does up against the likes of Schurter, Sarrou, MVDP etc. He's raced CX & MTB XCO since he was a kid so it's not like he's never raced it.
 
Well, that is true, I guess if Ineos want to make him a GT winner, they will...
But so far he hasn't shown more than "promise" in stage races. He hasn't beaten any of the best there, but other very talented youngsters. The best of his age have already beaten much bigger names on climbs. Of course, he isn't a full road racer, yet, unlike others, so there is much room to improve once he does - but as much as this could play out it could be it doesn't. He destroyed the Baby Giro against Vandenabeele - nothing against him, that guy is awfully talented. But I think he's not a good indicator, yet.
What do you mean by 'He isn't a full road racer' ?

He has better race craft than some of the seasoned pro's in the peloton. He has won races against Elites on the domestic scene as a junior.
 
What do you mean by 'He isn't a full road racer' ?

He has better race craft than some of the seasoned pro's in the peloton. He has won races against Elites on the domestic scene as a junior.
I meant he's not a full time road racer, he does cross and mtb, and once he concentrates on the road and works specifically towards 3 weeks endurance and climbing he could improve his GT GC chances... it wasn't meant degrading...
 
As far as I remember, Pidcock did the fastest lap last year at the WCh in Leogang, all classes considered and he did that under worst conditions than the Elite Men the following day (deeper mud). Technique and climbing ability won't be the problem. Let's see how he fares during 1h30m against the top guns.
 
Technically he's a great bike handler. It will be interesting to see what he does up against the likes of Schurter, Sarrou, MVDP etc. He's raced CX & MTB XCO since he was a kid so it's not like he's never raced it.
Not quite true; he's done very little competitive MTB XC racing. In 2019 he turned up to the British MTB championships as a 'one off' - and won the U23 race. Last year he did a few French Cup races, plus a MTB stage race, then the World Cups in Nove Mesto, after that the Worlds in Leogang.

I don't think he'll have an issue, but he is still new to the discipline - MvdP had a few crashes when he first tried it - and they were when he was put under pressure; Albstadt '17, and Nove Mesto in '18.
 
Reactions: postmanhat
Let's put it this way, I accept van Aert won, but not that he reached the black line first (the illusory finish line). I understand perfectly, it is you who don't get it.
Then why accept that Van Aert won ? Have you done what I asked ? Contact the experts and the officials ? I don't think so. They would confirm that you do not understand anything about it.
 
Then why accept that Van Aert won ? Have you done what I asked ? Contact the experts and the officials ? I don't think so. They would confirm that you do not understand anything about it.
I don't do what you ask, since you are nobody to me. Let's put it this way (again): I accept that van Aert won since it's pointless to refuse, but that the officials got it wrong. It's called having a judgment or are you suggesting that one contrary to your view and that of the officials is illicit and should thus be persecuted?
 
I don't do what you ask, since you are nobody to me. Let's put it this way (again): I accept that van Aert won since it's pointless to refuse, but that the officials got it wrong. It's called having a judgment or are you suggesting that one contrary to your view and that of the officials is illicit and should thus be persecuted?
Again, you have no arguments at all to deny that Van Aert has won, officially and in reality. You accuse the specialists and the jury of being wrong. In fact, you accuse those officials to cheat.. That is a very serious accusation,
all the more from nothing that shows that you know anything about it yourself.
 
I don't do what you ask, since you are nobody to me. Let's put it this way (again): I accept that van Aert won since it's pointless to refuse, but that the officials got it wrong. It's called having a judgment or are you suggesting that one contrary to your view and that of the officials is illicit and should thus be persecuted?
Dunning-Kruger effect case and point.
 
that being said, there is a big diff between pro and u23. It's not that easy to become MTB world class. It says enough it took VDP 3 years to finally beat Schurter and win world cups
Thing is, before the XCC (short track) the riders with only few points would start from far back. I'd take them a lot of time/laps and effort to make it to the front (usually). Even when not beating Nino, MVDP was always really close and looked like the only one who can compete with him since the almost the beginning of his XCO WC racing campaign.
 
Again, you have no arguments at all to deny that Van Aert has won, officially and in reality. You accuse the specialists and the jury of being wrong. In fact, you accuse those officials to cheat.. That is a very serious accusation,
all the more from nothing that shows that you know anything about it yourself.
I don't recall having accused officials of cheating, rather that they called it incorrectly. Having looked at various photos of different angles, I've been unavoidably led to this conclussion. So much for no arguments. But I know you know all about it, bla, bla, bla. Look I realize it's infuriating that someone thinks van Aert's win was a sham, but you will just have to live with it, tormenting though it may be.
 
I don't recall having accused officials of cheating, rather that they called it incorrectly. Having looked at various photos of different angles, I've been unavoidably led to this conclussion. So much for no arguments. But I know you know all about it, bla, bla, bla. Look I realize it's infuriating that someone thinks van Aert's win was a sham, but you will just have to live with it, tormenting though it may be.
I think we'll be fine. I'd think it's mainly you who'll be tormented by the looks of it. We all agree the finish photo was not taken on the black line but on the first white line. Turns out that's exactly according to regulations as stipulated in the rule book. So no, the officials didn't get it wrong. People just unjustly assumed it would be taken at the black line and that that would be what matters. So most of us, including you and whoever wants to keep this *** alive, were not informed. Quite possibly Pidcock as well, maybe even van Aert. But it's in the rule book, so i guess they just should have read that or have someone inform them better if they think they were wronged. Your argument ends here. The finish photo was taken according to regulations, and it clearly shows van Aert winning by an inch or so.

But you'll surely want to keep hampering on about the fact that you believe Pidcock crossed the black line first based on your expert angled-vision, and if everybody, including Pidcock and van Aert assumed that would be the line, then "Pidcock won". I've already told you why that would be nearly impossible. It would mean Pidcock would have been going more than 10% faster than van Aert, in order to make up 2.5cm (his deficit at the point the finish camera was placed) in 25cm (the distance to where the black line was). You don't even have to measure anything to see that Pidcock is not going that much faster, if at all. Second reason why it is unlikely, is because looking at the video, you can see it is Pidcock who throws his bike earlier than van Aert. If either of them benefited from the finishphoto being taken before the black line, it would have been Pidcock.

But the final piece of evidence has been in front of us the entire time. It's in the finishphoto itself. You need to understand the way the finish camera works, and how the picture is formed. It acts like a scan and registers everything that passes it. It's not a "picture" taken at "the moment" their wheels cross the line. In fact, every instance of the image is taken at the moment that particular instance moves before the camera. That means the position of the rear wheels on the photo is not taken at the moment the front wheels cross the camera/white line, but the moment the rear wheels cross the line, at the time when in reality, the front wheels have already crossed the line for roughly 1.5 meters. You can see on the finish photo that the gap between both riders rear wheels is about the same in Pidcock's advantage, as the gap between the front wheels is in van Aert's advantage. Both gaps measured to the bikelength of Pidcock's bike, would mean the gap at the rear wheel as the gap at the front wheel, would be about 2.5 cm. So you could argue that when both riders had passed the line for 1.5m, that at that point Pidcock's bike was actually in front. But here comes the kicker: Pidcock's bike is 2 sizes smaller than van Aert's, which means Pidcock's entire bikelength is actually 3.5cm shorter than Van Aert's. Which in turn means at the time their rear wheel crosses the line, Pidcock's front wheel STILL hasn't overtaken van Aert's front wheel.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan and yaco
I think we'll be fine. I'd think it's mainly you who'll be tormented by the looks of it. We all agree the finish photo was not taken on the black line but on the first white line. Turns out that's exactly according to regulations as stipulated in the rule book. So no, the officials didn't get it wrong. People just unjustly assumed it would be taken at the black line and that that would be what matters. So most of us, including you and whoever wants to keep this *** alive, were not informed. Quite possibly Pidcock as well, maybe even van Aert. But it's in the rule book, so i guess they just should have read that or have someone inform them better if they think they were wronged. Your argument ends here. The finish photo was taken according to regulations, and it clearly shows van Aert winning by an inch or so.

But you'll surely want to keep hampering on about the fact that you believe Pidcock crossed the black line first based on your expert angled-vision, and if everybody, including Pidcock and van Aert assumed that would be the line, then "Pidcock won". I've already told you why that would be nearly impossible. It would mean Pidcock would have been going more than 10% faster than van Aert, in order to make up 2.5cm (his deficit at the point the finish camera was placed) in 25cm (the distance to where the black line was). You don't even have to measure anything to see that Pidcock is not going that much faster, if at all. Second reason why it is unlikely, is because looking at the video, you can see it is Pidcock who throws his bike earlier than van Aert. If either of them benefited from the finishphoto being taken before the black line, it would have been Pidcock.

But the final piece of evidence has been in front of us the entire time. It's in the finishphoto itself. You need to understand the way the finish camera works, and how the picture is formed. It acts like a scan and registers everything that passes it. It's not a "picture" taken at "the moment" their wheels cross the line. In fact, every instance of the image is taken at the moment that particular instance moves before the camera. That means the position of the rear wheels on the photo is not taken at the moment the front wheels cross the camera/white line, but the moment the rear wheels cross the line, at the time when in reality, the front wheels have already crossed the line for roughly 1.5 meters. You can see on the finish photo that the gap between both riders rear wheels is about the same in Pidcock's advantage, as the gap between the front wheels is in van Aert's advantage. Both gaps measured to the bikelength of Pidcock's bike, would mean the gap at the rear wheel as the gap at the front wheel, whould be about 2.5 cm. So you could argue that when both riders had passed the line for 1.5m, that at that point Pidcock's bike was actually in front. But here comes the kicker: Pidcock's bike is 2 sizes smaller than van Aert's, which means Pidcock's entire bikelength is actually 3.5cm shorter than Van Aert's. Which in turn means at the time their rear wheel crosses the line, Pidcock's front wheel STILL hasn't overtaken van Aert's front wheel.
I posed a question as to the exact whereabouts of the finish, stating that it was my impression that it was the black line. The response I got was affirmative. Now if this is not the case, then why the hell is it there - the black line that is?

Everything else about the photo finish looses credibility if we cannot respond to this simple question. Is the black line there only for effect? Deception? Also because Pidcock's front tire clearly hit it first, as demonstrated from the available non-official shots taken from two different angles. Unfortunately the photo finish pictures apparently don't even take the black line into consideration. Again, so why is it there? Because if it isn't actually the arrival upon which the photo finish is gauged, then it should be removed. And we wouldn't even be having this tedious debate.
 
I posed a question as to the exact whereabouts of the finish, stating that it was my impression that it was the black line. The response I got was affirmative. Now if this is not the case, then why the hell is it there - the black line that is?

Everything else about the photo finish looses credibility if we cannot respond to this simple question. Is the black line there only for effect? Deception? Also because Pidcock's front tire clearly hit it first, as demonstrated from the available non-official shots taken from two different angles. Unfortunately the photo finish pictures apparently don't even take the black line into consideration. Again, so why is it there? Because if it isn't actually the arrival upon which the photo finish is gauged, then it should be removed. And we wouldn't even be having this tedious debate.
The black line can't act as the finish photo location, because then there would be insufficient contrast between the background (the black line) and the tires/wheels crossing it. Cases like these are one in a thousand. In most cases it wouldn't even matter and likely the black line does indeed have its purpose to get a view of who won from regular TV cameras as a base reference, which would be enough in not so extreme cases.

But ultimately, as my previous post clearly proves, Pidcock's front tire can not have hit it first, so it simply doesn't even matter in this case, whether the camera was placed on the white stripe or the black line. Van Aert crossed both first.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The black line can't act as the finish photo location, because then there would be insufficient contrast between the background (the black line) and the tires/wheels crossing it. Cases like these are one in a thousand. In most cases it wouldn't even matter and likely the black line does indeed have its purpose to get a view of who won from regular TV cameras as a base reference, which would be enough in not so extreme cases.

But ultimately, as my previous post clearly proves, Pidcock's front tire can not have hit it first, so it simply doesn't even matter in this case, whether the camera was placed on the white stripe or the black line. Van Aert crossed both first.
You haven't "proved" anything, let alone clearly. As to your first paragraph, it just goes to show how the system is imperfect from which imperfect results, though rarely, can arise as I believe happened in this case.

It's just odd that the black line is the finish, except in cases too close to call when it mysteriously becomes a mere illusion based on how the photo finish cameras are gauged. Put fixed cameras set to the black line and be done with it. The advanced system is no more reliable otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Like in football, the final result is written - Wout was declared as the winner. Whether he actually did is another matter - but the officials say he did, and one is bound to think they are correct. However, having seen some awful mistakes from officials operating the VAR technology in football, then I'll have an open mind.....
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Like in football, the final result is written - Wout was declared as the winner. Whether he actually did is another matter - but the officials say he did, and one is bound to think they are correct. However, having seen some awful mistakes from officials operating the VAR technology in football, then I'll have an open mind.....
Or incorrect as the case may be. Everything else you write makes sense and is in keeping with what I have been pointing out all along. Let's see if the hecklers will now come after you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY