Tour de France 2017 stage 4: Mondorf-les-Bains-Vittel 207 km

[lartiste]

Re: Re:

To get legal/ethical: is it intention, principle or consequences that matter here? Anyone know how the judgement is made?

Sagan is getting punished because the consequences of his actions were the most severe. But by principle (i.e. of holding your line) Demare does far worse - and yet retains the win.

Punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder.

You do not understand the way rules in all sports works. It is the same for ice-hockey, cycling, football etc. - you are prohibited to do certain things not to injure the other players, when you do such a thing you will be punished, but regardless of the outcome!

 

[d-s3]

Sagan’s team reportedly has had no reply from the UCI jury

how simple it is...

 

[AQETUYIOI]

Re: Re:

Punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder.

You do not understand the way rules in all sports works. It is the same for ice-hockey, cycling, football etc. - you are prohibited to do certain things not to injure the other players, when you do such a thing you will be punished, but regardless of the outcome!

Legal punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder!

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

To get legal/ethical: is it intention, principle or consequences that matter here? Anyone know how the judgement is made?

Sagan is getting punished because the consequences of his actions were the most severe. But by principle (i.e. of holding your line) Demare does far worse - and yet retains the win.

Punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder.

Indeed. But punishment for attempted murder is more severe than for causing accidental harm.

When it comes down to it, I think intention is playing a big role in the decision to DQ Sagan. If there's no intention in that elbow - i.e. it's just for balance or whatever - then it's much more of a racing incident than it is a deliberate and aggressive act to put Cav into the barriers.

There was definitely intention in Tom Steels throwing a bottle. Renshaw headbutting was debatable - was plausibly for balance. Sagan is debatable. I find it hard to believe he would purposely do that, but if so, DQ is justified.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re:

Surprised there has not been more made of the UCI race jury to change their decision. They make Decision I after reviewing all video and it seems fair enough to most neutrals. Then Dim Data team management go in to make their case and straight after comes Decision II. It seems hard to believe that Dim Data had any further evidence to provide that wasn't available when Decision I was made so what did they say or do which led to Decision II ? Another example of a conflict of interest when a team which has the son of the UCI president on its staff is making its case to a UCI jury ?

Peter Sagan is the most popular and bankable figure in the professional peloton. What can the UCI gain with this ballsy decision?

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

I think there is a big difference between swerving a bit to overtake a slower rider in the middle of the road, and taking a diagonal line which culminated in elbowing a faster, accelerating rider into the barriers. Even if Demare did 'swerve' more, what Sagan did was clearly much more dangerous.

No one "elbowed" anyone.
If you cannot take the time to watch the slow-mo front video, then at least have the decency to not comment on it.

It is fair to discuss the "changed lines" topic.
It is even fair to say Sagan should have just crashed into the riders in the left.

But parotting by now a debunked assertion is not fair or fine at this point.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

Surprised there has not been more made of the UCI race jury to change their decision. They make Decision I after reviewing all video and it seems fair enough to most neutrals. Then Dim Data team management go in to make their case and straight after comes Decision II. It seems hard to believe that Dim Data had any further evidence to provide that wasn't available when Decision I was made so what did they say or do which led to Decision II ? Another example of a conflict of interest when a team which has the son of the UCI president on its staff is making its case to a UCI jury ?

Peter Sagan is the most popular and bankable figure in the professional peloton. What can the UCI gain with this ballsy decision?

Who knows ? Maybe there are other cases where a race jury has made one verdict and then amended it after being visited by team management but off the top of my head I don't recall one. Something appeared to make them change their decision. What would you think if a football ref gave a player a yellow card, then the opposition team owner came out onto the pitch and spoke to the ref who then changed his decision and gave the player a red card ? Meanwhile Sagan remains popular and bankable, as does Cavendish

 

[dukoff]

Re: Tour de France 2017 stage 4: Mondorf-les-Bains-Vittel 20

UCI Jury president Philippe Marien :

1. “It was not an easy decision, but it’s the beginning of the Tour and this is now the moment to set our boundaries, and that is what we have done today.”

2. "In every sprint something happens, but what happens there, it looks like it was on purpose and it almost looks like hitting a person"

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/the-uci-race-jury-explains-decision-to-disqualify-peter-sagan-from-the-tour-de-france-339632


So, the jury's intent should at least not be misinterpreted.

 

[Dr. Watson]

Re: Tour de France 2017 stage 4: Mondorf-les-Bains-Vittel 20

UCI Jury president Philippe Marien :

1. “It was not an easy decision, but it’s the beginning of the Tour and this is now the moment to set our boundaries, and that is what we have done today.”

2. "In every sprint something happens, but what happens there, it looks like it was on purpose and it almost looks like hitting a person"

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/the-uci-race-jury-explains-decision-to-disqualify-peter-sagan-from-the-tour-de-france-339632


So, the jury's intent should at least not be misinterpreted.

If it was because of the elbow then they clearly havent looked at the footage carefully as it clearly wasnt an attack from sagan and certainly didnt deserve a DSQ, it will be interesting to see if something similar happens again how they gonna react cause they could throw out somebody every day with that precedent

 

[Jericho]

Re: Re:

Punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder.

You do not understand the way rules in all sports works. It is the same for ice-hockey, cycling, football etc. - you are prohibited to do certain things not to injure the other players, when you do such a thing you will be punished, but regardless of the outcome!

Legal punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder!

Not sure where you live, but the punishment for murder and attempted murder are the same here. You don't get a lesser punishment for failing

 

[ihosama]

Re:

No one deserves to crash.
Cavendish was reckless, tue. So were most in that sprint. ASO wanted a sprint but a chaotic, hence, "interesting" *and* "crash-prone" one. So the finish was made to provide that. Mission accomplished.

On the positive side. I have the feeling this was the last time someone tried to push Sagan around in a sprint.
Does not matter if he is a bad or good guy. But no self-preserving rider tries to push the barrier, erm, Sagan, around.

The reason Cav went down so hard was Sagan in fact. But simply because he is not one you can (physicaly) push around when on a bike in a race. Instead of "giving in" when nudged, like Cav hoped and like most riders instinctively react, Sagan simply firmed up and "rode through it" which was enough to push Cav around. Cav expected a "soft" coptact but got a "hard" one. If he expected a hard one he might have kept his balance. Split-second bad judgement and a bad luck. Nothing more.

This "going through" act may seem arrogance compared to other riders. But in my view it is a natural and instinctive reaction of a guy who can jump over a rider in a split second. Sagan simply *knows* he can restore balance in a situation most riders would crash and so does not panic. This is why it seems as if Cav barely touches him - most other riders would give-in when nudged much more in reaction instead of "ignoring" it and just throwing an albow and thigh a second later to regain balance.
This slow-mo can be used in schools on how to maintain balance on a bike if you ask me.

My 2 cents for what it is not worth.

 

[Ruby United]

Re: Re:

Punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder.

You do not understand the way rules in all sports works. It is the same for ice-hockey, cycling, football etc. - you are prohibited to do certain things not to injure the other players, when you do such a thing you will be punished, but regardless of the outcome!

Legal punishment for murder is more severe than for attempted murder!

Not sure where you live, but the punishment for murder and attempted murder are the same here. You don't get a lesser punishment for failing

I'm not sure whether either of you live in the UK, but here in the UK though attempted murder does carry a maximum sentence of life, it is very rarely used due to the fact, to be convicted of attempted murder, intention to kill and an overt act towards committing homicide must have taken place, something that it is extremely hard to unequivocally prove. One must not just have planned to kill and have actually done something physical to kill, but rather must have committed both. If an attempted murder is stopped before any act of murder is attempted or we cannot prove that the murder was with intent to kill and not just harm the opponent, the defendant cannot be tried for attempted murder.
Therefore, in summation, though attempted murder does theoretically carry out a maximum life sentence, much like actual murder, in practice one is rarely prosecuted for attempted murder and is rather sentenced on a lesser accusation, such as soliciting to murder or conspiracy to murder.

 

[SKSemtex]

Re: Re:

No one deserves to crash.
Cavendish was reckless, tue. So were most in that sprint. ASO wanted a sprint but a chaotic, hence, "interesting" *and* "crash-prone" one. So the finish was made to provide that. Mission accomplished.

On the positive side. I have the feeling this was the last time someone tried to push Sagan around in a sprint.
Does not matter if he is a bad or good guy. But no self-preserving rider tries to push the barrier, erm, Sagan, around.

The reason Cav went down so hard was Sagan in fact. But simply because he is not one you can (physicaly) push around when on a bike in a race. Instead of "giving in" when nudged, like Cav hoped and like most riders instinctively react, Sagan simply firmed up and "rode through it" which was enough to push Cav around. Cav expected a "soft" coptact but got a "hard" one. If he expected a hard one he might have kept his balance. Split-second bad judgement and a bad luck. Nothing more.

This "going through" act may seem arrogance compared to other riders. But in my view it is a natural and instinctive reaction of a guy who can jump over a rider in a split second. Sagan simply *knows* he can restore balance in a situation most riders would crash and so does not panic. This is why it seems as if Cav barely touches him - most other riders would give-in when nudged much more in reaction instead of "ignoring" it and just throwing an albow and thigh a second later to regain balance.
This slow-mo can be used in schools on how to maintain balance on a bike if you ask me.

My 2 cents for what it is not worth.

I am afraid this will have the different impact. Peter might stop to ride in final sprints his natural way, beeing scared that each his move will be under the microscope to justify UCI decisions about how dangerous he is. (ask Nacer - who is now shadow of Nacer from 2015). This can bring him and other riders down more times than it was so far. His bike handling skills save him and other riders numerous time from the crash.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

There was definitely intention in Tom Steels throwing a bottle. Renshaw headbutting was debatable - was plausibly for balance. Sagan is debatable. I find it hard to believe he would purposely do that, but if so, DQ is justified.

Renshaw followed his headbutting almost immediately - within 2-3 seconds - with a wild veer to the left that put Tyler Farrar in the barriers. Maybe each incident was debatable, but both back to back was extremely dangerous and I don't think they had much option on that occasion. Cav won the stage, so relegating a leadout man is totally irrelevant as a penalty, same as all those domestiques don't care about being docked 25 points for missing the time cut in a week 3 mountain stage; however they couldn't penalize Cav as he hadn't done anything wrong, so with two "yellow card" offences in quick succession (even if you don't think each merited a DQ, they definitely merited warning/relegation) it made total sense for him to be ejected on that occasion.

This one is more debatable than Renshaw because the dangerous lane move and the debated physical aggression are part of the same move rather than two separate instances of dangerous riding, though apparently Sagan had also been causing some issues in an intermediate at some point so perhaps the race jury decided a warning wasn't enough. After all, he does have previous, as Maxime Vantomme can tell you. And while Greipel's later statement was that he thought the DQ was harsh, he didn't totally recant from saying Sagan did anything wrong, just that he had been wrong to react so viscerally to it and it hadn't been as bad an offence as he had first thought. As others have pointed out, riders who have a bad reputation or don't have such a following would not see such protest - and certainly it would be interesting to see how the incident would have been interpreted with roles reversed and Sagan coming up on the right and being injured by Cav coming into the side of him.

Claiming you don't think it's a DQ offence and the original penalty was sufficient is fine. Claiming Sagan was blameless is wrong (though his degree of culpability can be debated). Claiming Sagan shouldn't be DQed for entertainment purposes because it would be bad for the race is absolutely reprehensible and would send the message, if you're a big enough star you get carte blanche to do as you please because you're above the rules, and that's a line I don't think we should go down.

 

[Netserk]

Libertine, did it look deliberate to you (the elbow, not closing the door)?

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

I am afraid this will have the different impact. Peter might stop to ride in final sprints his natural way, beeing scared that each his move will be under the microscope to justify UCI decisions about how dangerous he is. (ask Nacer - who is now shadow of Nacer from 2015). This can bring him and other riders down more times than it was so far. His bike handling skills save him and other riders numerous time from the crash.

I do not think so. Sagan is not Nacer to be pushed around. On or off the track.

And the Bora team position and Slovak Cycling Union position are also very important here with both backing him. I would not be suprised if this DQ has consequences we will not hear in the news but can have a much positive effect on the future of cycling.

For one there are 3 fatal issues with the penalty. Even putting asside if it was justified.
1) The rule that a ruling is final and cannot be appealed/changed is a stupid rule BUT even it was not followed after external pressure was put on the race jury.
This is not acceptable as sheds a very, very, dark tone on the whole affair.

2) The fact there is no (standard) procedure for the rider to "defend" himself during the initial deliberation. This is simply wrong, especially when decisions are based on perceived(!) intent here.

3) The fact the jury is put under time pressure and does not have any (standard) procedure for an appeal e.g. within 24 hours of the original decision. In this case this was the biggest problem as it is obvious the jury did NOT have the possibility to see all evidence and acted in best faith based on the one presented. But there was clearly no procedural way for them to correct themselves once the detailed footage emerged an hour later.

1) Is a shady business, so probably unavoidable.
2) and 3) is something that needs to be fixed. I heard Armstrong "scream" riders union yesterday. He also said it would take a real rider personality to create one. Sagan has what it takes. Question is if this year or later. Time is ripe for such as the zero-safety situation on the curves in the prologue showed, aggressive motos etc.

 

[ihosama]

Re:

Libertine, did it look deliberate to you (the elbow, not closing the door)?

You should not be ambiguous.
Lets not play games. This is Sagan not a kid. It was deliberate, that is not in question.

Question is if it was to:
a) free up Cav's handlebars/brake (possible)
b) regain balance (almost certain, at least in the latter phases of the move)
c) defend "his space" (feasible, but unlikely given it was only *after* Cav already hit Sagan, a bit too late for a defensive move)
d) push Cav around (unlikely, I cannot see the point here, especially since Cav was behind, not next to Sagan at that moment, so Sagan would be "pushing" air - a very dangerous action which can see him crash on itself)

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I think there is a big difference between swerving a bit to overtake a slower rider in the middle of the road, and taking a diagonal line which culminated in elbowing a faster, accelerating rider into the barriers. Even if Demare did 'swerve' more, what Sagan did was clearly much more dangerous.

No one "elbowed" anyone.
If you cannot take the time to watch the slow-mo front video, then at least have the decency to not comment on it.

It is fair to discuss the "changed lines" topic.
It is even fair to say Sagan should have just crashed into the riders in the left.

But parotting by now a debunked assertion is not fair or fine at this point.

It's clearly not debunked. It's the reason he was thrown out of the race.

If you don't see it as a deliberate elbow, that's fine. But the commisaires - who I wager are much more qualified and experienced in these matters than pretty much any one else, decided it was.

 

[d-s3]

There was no elbow contact at all.
That's pretty clear from all videos.

One can argue about whether DSQ was adequate punishment for not holding the line.
But to claim the "elbow" again and again...

 

[DFA123]

Re:

There was no elbow contact at all.
That's pretty clear from all videos.

One can argue about whether DSQ was adequate punishment for not holding the line.
But to claim the "elbow" again and again...

From the man who hit the deck and broke his shoulder:

A crash is a crash but I'd just like to know about that elbow really

So you might want to watch a new video.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

There was no elbow contact at all.
That's pretty clear from all videos.

One can argue about whether DSQ was adequate punishment for not holding the line.
But to claim the "elbow" again and again...

From the man who hit the deck and broke his shoulder:

A crash is a crash but I'd just like to know about that elbow really

So you might want to watch a new video.

Does he want to know about the first elbow or the second one? That's my whole problem with the "elbow to balance" thing. When Sagan decides he wants Demare's wheel and has to fight Cav for it he lifts his elbow as he moves across, a second later he does the same thing. I really want to say that it was a poor decision to DSQ him and I am not a fan of Sagan the person, but that first elbow makes it hard to accept the reason for the second one.

 

[ihosama]

Re: Re:

But the commisaires - who I wager are much more qualified and experienced in these matters than pretty much any one else, decided it was.

Circular argument. Using the fact that commisairs in the heat of the moment, without the benefit of time, with pressure from their employer, without seeing all the footage, made a decision as for why that same decision was "correct" is absurd.

To me, there are two key aspects.
- the _post_race_ penalization system is a complete mess that breeds arbitrariness due to the lack of any appeal/correction option that would tendo to self-correct such a system over time
- in addition, this specific jurry gave-in to external pressure, forfeiting good will they had to start with

Combined with last year's Froome incident and Sagan's 2015 Vuelta take-down reaction makes it clear that the ASO/UCI tandem is best to be completely ignored.
I will still support guys like Sagan or GVA. But not a penny of my money will be spent that would benefit UCI or ASO.

 

[d-s3]

Re: Re:

A crash is a crash but I'd just like to know about that elbow really

Read next interview with Cav. He accepted that the elbow was for balancing, which is what you can see in the videos.
But sure, we can pursue the elbow line even if it was after the fact and it did not connect with Cav at all.

 

[BigMac]

Re:

Libertine, did it look deliberate to you (the elbow, not closing the door)?

Hi,

Just wanted to say the quote in your signature is gold.

 

[IndianCyclist]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-cavendish-sagan-final-words-on-crash/
i think maybe hopefully this closes it