Tour de France Tour De France 2021, stage 1 (Brest-Landerneau, 197.8 km)

[Breh]

The victim blaming is very strong here.

As if Tony Martin intentionally crashed into her. I honestly can't believe people actually think Tony would do that.
Like saying Buongiorno was asking to get pushed off his bike on the Zoncolan.

This spectator is a moron and should be heavily fined.
I'm just so fcking fed up with these attentionwhores.

I really love people coming out of their homes to salute the race and applaud the riders but I very strongly dislike these attentionseeking mongos.
Always nice to see the Guardia Civil knock one of these degenerates to the ground.

 

[hayneplane]

Rog and Pog looked several levels above the rest. They clearly shadow boxed once together and didn’t want to commit and pull the other to a stage win.

Had either one of them gone on their own I feel very confident they would have caught and dropped Alaphillipe.

Great teamwork by DQS doing super aggressive mountain lead out peel offs to it the rest on the limit but with their disgusting pulling on the front after the first crash caused by fan action not a racing incident I was really hoping that anybody but Alaphillipe would be the winner.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

I think everyone who knows her, saw her on the tv today, so it shouldn’t be too hard to track her down.

At the same time, I’m equally sure she feels absolutely awful about it, and is unlikely to do anything similar ever again.

It's not about her, it's about teaching every future spectator a lesson.

If you carelessly endanger the riders, you will face charges - just as it should be.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Should multi-million dollar cycling teams sue a working-class individual? It may render the individual destitute.

Yes

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Am I the only one who thinks Martin should have avoided that crash?

Of course it is the spectators fault for being completely oblivious and standing there with that stupid smile. But honestly it just seemed so obvious that she was not paying attention and held the sign there for a while.

Martin clearly either expected her to remove it last second with no vision or actively sought a collision (being the only rider riding that widely). Both of which are reckless considering his responsibilities.

I may be biased though. This just strikes me as something Tony Martin would do...

Where on earth do you want Martin to move to?

His only options are:

1. Hit the Spectator
2. Crash into the rider to his left, taking down the entire peloton.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

For intentionally causing a crash that injured multiple riders. YES. For what she did, she should be JAILED for reckless endangerment at the very least. She MUST suffer MAJOR consequences for what she INTENTIONALLY did.

Yay let's put more people in jail, that will definitely prevent such incidents in the future. While we're at it we can jail whoever caused that second crash in which a spectator on the side of the road was hit.

Your response and that of everyone else calling for the spectator to be jailed is small-minded, nasty and ignorant. What you're saying is that reckless behaviour must be met with violence, because that is what prisons are. Violent institutions.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

On the sign woman... when you have thousands of people on the road so close to the riders, some people are going to do dumb things. IMHO the ASO is hypocritical if they actually plan to sue. Don't want this to happen? Then ban spectators or pay for better security.
In fact, the ASO benefits from this since it generates more interest in a stage that otherwise would have been boring until the finishing climb.

"Pay for better security" - on both sides of 200K of road?

Are you crazy dude?

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Truth is, 95% of other riders wouldn't have crashed here. They would have noticed the danger.

Tony Martin has a nag for displaying unnecessary dominance of social and physical spaces when it's not constructive. He noticed the danger but refused to react because of his principles.

Avoided how?

Where is he supposed to go exactly, to avoid a spectator holding a sign across his path?

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Yes

This response nauseates me. You've lost touch with reality.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Biggest moment in Alaphilippe's career. Winning stage 1 of the Tour in the rainbow jersey. It doesn't get bigger than that.

He could be wearing a gold helmet while doing so...

 

[Broccolidwarf]

This response nauseates me. You've lost touch with reality.

Too bad.

The notion that being poor, somehow absolves you from taking responsibility for your actions, is absurd to me.

It doesn't matter how much money she has - or not - her actions are still the same, and she should be punished according to the actions - not her financial standing.

 

[Breh]

This response nauseates me. You've lost touch with reality.

I disagree.
Laws and legislation exist for everyone, both working class individuals and multi-million corporations.
Being middle-class doesn't mean you shouldn't take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Koronin]

Yay let's put more people in jail, that will definitely prevent such incidents in the future. While we're at it we can jail whoever caused that second crash in which a spectator on the side of the road was hit.

Your response and that of everyone else calling for the spectator to be jailed is small-minded, nasty and ignorant. What you're saying is that reckless behaviour must be met with violence, because that is what prisons are. Violent institutions.

It's called CONSEQUENCES for actions. If you do the crime you need to do the time. Yes reckless behavior that endangers others needs to be met with jail time. There are many non violent people in jail for multiple reasons don't give me any BS about there not being.

The ONLY thing small-minded, nasty and ignorant is YOUR refusing to want to allow people to have real consequences for their actions.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

It's called CONSEQUENCES for actions. If you do the crime you need to do the time. Yes reckless behavior that endangers others needs to be met with jail time.

Agreed.

However, I do not agree with you saying the action was "intended".

It was clearly not intended to disrupt the race, but rather another shameless spectator trying to get on TV - without "bad intentions".

 

[gregrowlerson]

Regarding the crashes:

The first one was stupid and shouldn't have happened, but I'm surprised that such incidents with fans don't happen more often, given that they are at such close proximity to the riders. Given the uniqueness of road racing, guaranteeing reduction of such incidents is nigh on impossible. As for the spectator who caused the crash, I have mixed feelings. There was zero malice in her actions, though there was obviously negligence. Should she have her life ruined for what she did? Is her life already ruined to some degree, regardless? What if that crash had killed a rider? What if Pogacar and Roglic were knocked out of the race entirely? Sorry, but I have more questions than answers.

As for the second crash, again, I'm surprised that such outcomes don't happen even more often; too many riders, not enough road. A smaller peloton? Same teams, but 6 per team instead of 8, maybe that can reduce the number of those racing incidents. Didn't F1 used to have 30 cars on the grid in the 70's and 80's, but later reduced their numbers? There are 3 grand tours a year. Why do we need 180-200 riders in the Tour De France? It's their dream to race it you say? Well, we all have dreams, many of which are not realised. Less riders to begin with I say.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

Can someone point me to the French law that results in jail time for posing for a TV camera with a cardboard sign dangling in front of the road?

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Too bad.

The notion that being poor, somehow absolves you from taking responsibility for your actions, is absurd to me.

It doesn't matter how much money she has - or not - her actions are still the same, and she should be punished according to the actions - not her financial standing.

Essentially what you're proposing is transferring responsibility for a complex problem onto one individual who did something stupid. The reality is that race organisers cannot guarantee the safety of riders while continuing to allow for large crowds, full access tv coverage, large pelotons, and aggressive racing (i.e. using all of the road + more at times). Massive security presence and full barriers makes these events unviable. Banning crowds makes for a poor entertainment product and likely reduces sponsor interest. No one's going to DQ riders for getting too close to the edge of the road.

Every time this happens it's put down to individual stupidity, but the reality is that crowd behaviour and worldwide tv coverage makes these incidents inevitable. ASO and the UCI would accept that too, although they would never publicly admit it.

But if retribution in this one case makes you feel better, you're not worth the time of day.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

It's called CONSEQUENCES for actions. If you do the crime you need to do the time. Yes reckless behavior that endangers others needs to be met with jail time. There are many non violent people in jail for multiple reasons don't give me any BS about there not being.

The ONLY thing small-minded, nasty and ignorant is YOUR refusing to want to allow people to have real consequences for their actions.

My point is that the act of jailing people is violent. And you're right, prisons in the US are full of people who committed no crime at all, and as a result are subject to violence, exploitation (essentially slave labour) and deprivation (covid risk for example). Never mind, lock more people up to teach them a lesson and face the consequences of their actions. More violence is always the solution

Hey what were all those protests about last year? Yeah who remembers right.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

I disagree.
Laws and legislation exist for everyone, both working class individuals and multi-million corporations.

Ahh... no, not really.

 

[Koronin]

Can someone point me to the French law that results in jail time for posing for a TV camera with a cardboard sign dangling in front of the road?

I'm sure they have a reckless endangerment law with severe penalties.

 

[Koronin]

My point is that the act of jailing people is violent. And you're right, prisons in the US are full of people who committed no crime at all, and as a result are subject to violence, exploitation (essentially slave labour) and deprivation (covid risk for example). Never mind, lock more people up to teach them a lesson and face the consequences of their actions. More violence is always the solution

Hey what were all those protests about last year? Yeah who remembers right.

The person intentionally INJURED a LOT of riders. She her actions WERE violent. You are trying to absolve an intentional act that broke riders bones.

 

[Andre]

The person intentionally INJURED a LOT of riders. She her actions WERE violent. You are trying to absolve an intentional act that broke riders bones.

I agree 100 percent. What the hell does it take for these people to realize that the woman did a criminal act? Does a cyclist have to die? Maybe then they will shut up with their stupidity. It is plain and simple endangerment...

 

[Pirazziattacks]

The person intentionally INJURED a LOT of riders. She her actions WERE violent. You are trying to absolve an intentional act that broke riders bones.

If you sincerely believe that was intentional, I have a bridge to sell you. Good on you for entirely ignoring my point though, A+ boomerism there.

 

[Koronin]

If you sincerely believe that was intentional, I have a bridge to sell you. Good on you for entirely ignoring my point though, A+ boomerism there.

Either it's intentional or she didn't care. Either way she is the REASON for multiple riders having BROKEN bones and for a VIOLENT crash. You still are having major issues understanding CONSEQUENCES for your actions. Her actions resulted in a VIOLENT crash that resulted in multiple BROKEN BONES. She needs to be punished.
The rest of your comment is 100% projection.

 

[red_flanders]

If you sincerely believe that was intentional, I have a bridge to sell you. Good on you for entirely ignoring my point though, A+ boomerism there.

There is no need for it to be intentional for it to be criminal. Reckless endangerment was created to address this. Obviously France has a different legal system and the specifics would change, but the general point remains.