Tour de France Tour de France 2024, Stage 11: Évaux-les-Bains > Le Lioran, 211km

[red_flanders]

If this is not exactly the intent of the rule then explain the intent of the rule.

The rule appears to be in effect to limit outsized effects of crashes in the final 3km when groups would normally no longer splinter to the line.

I'm pretty sure the rule isn't (or rather shouldn't be) there to reward people for surprisingly bad bike handling.

 

[Berniece]

Like in the 2022 Vuelta when he waited with his bike change(?) until 3 km to go so he would get the same time as the peloton? He finished 3 minutes behind the peloton after Rogla attacked near the finish.

CQ Ranking - Vuelta a España, Stage 16 : Sanlucar de Barrameda - Tomares

CQ Ranking is the world's leading cycling ranking and extensive results database. Also known as Cycling Quotient.

cqranking.com

Furthermore, notice that today was exactly as intended by the rule. Back then in 2022, the puncture was before 3 km to go so by the letter of the rule, it was a mistake to give Evenepoel the same time as the peloton.

1. Can you proof that he already had a mechanical issue before the 3km mark?
2. If you found that, can you give me the exact rule in the rulebook that says you can't ride with a mechanical until you are within the last 3km's until you ask for help?

Otherwise don't call him a cheater, and apologise.

 

[zlev11]

I'm pretty sure the rule isn't (or rather shouldn't) be there to reward people for surprisingly bad bike handling.

he wasn't rewarded, it cost him a chance at the 3rd place time bonus

 

[red_flanders]

It's not a reward if he didn't gain time from it.

That's a take.

He gained around 30 seconds from his actual finishing time.

 

[houtdffan]

today was not an uphill finish; the "climb" to the line was not classified. the 3km rule was in the rulebook for todays stage.

there have been so many more stupid applications of the 3km rule than today. who remembers the covid Paris-Nice when Schachmann did almost the same thing as Roglic today and kept the yellow jersey?

the 3km rule does not require a classified climb. There have been plenty of climbs to the finish that are not classified where the 3km rule still does not apply to. Armstrong lost time in a stage of the 2002 TDF on one such finish

 

[Netserk]

1. Can you proof that he already had a mechanical issue before the 3km mark?
2. If you found that, can you give me the exact rule in the rulebook that says you can't ride with a mechanical until you are within the last 3km's until you ask for help?

Otherwise don't call him a cheater, and apologise.

I no longer have footage of that stage, but it was an observation I and others made at the time. The rule speaks of an incidence within the last 3 km. The puncture is the incidence, the bike change isn't.

 

[Netserk]

the 3km rule does not require a classified climb. There have been plenty of climbs to the finish that are not classified where the 3km rule still does not apply to. Armstrong lost time in a stage of the 2002 TDF on one such finish

There was no 3 km rule back then, it was 1 km. 3 km was in 2005.

It was also applied in the uphill finish of stage 3 in the 2012 Tour. Wiggins and Froome were caught behind an incidence and took it easy to the finish.

 

[Berniece]

I no longer have footage of that stage, but it was an observation I and others made at the time. The rule speaks of an incidence within the last 3 km. The puncture is the incidence, the bike change isn't.

So you can't. Then you can apologise

 

[Netserk]

So you can't. Then you can apologise

I can, but I won't. He's a cheater.

You can go search for the race thread and see the discussion back then.

 

[Berniece]

I can, but I won't. He's a cheater.

You can go search for the race thread and see the discussion back then.

You should get a warning or a ban for this. It's the same as saying someone is using doping. Proof it, or stfu.

 

[Netserk]

You should get a warning or a ban for this. It's the same as saying someone is using doping. Proof it, or stfu.

If so, all those holding that position would have been banned back then. They weren't. Waiting until the last 3 km with the wheel change(?) is not reserved for the clinic, so it can be discussed here just fine. And if you go to that section of the forum you will see plenty of allegations of riders cheating that is perfectly tolerated, even if unproven.

Froome gets called a fraud constantly, Evenepoel will have to tolerate the same as Froome has to here.

 

[Berniece]

If so, all those holding that position would have been banned back then. They weren't. Waiting until the last 3 km with the wheel change(?) is not reserved for the clinic, so it can be discussed here just fine. And if you go to that section of the forum you will see plenty of allegations of riders cheating that is perfectly tolerated, even if unproven.

Indeed, in that section it's OK, not here. But more importantly, you can't proof it, that's quite clear now. You are calling someone a cheater, someone everyone knows you dislike, so you basically look like a child at the moment if you can't proof it.

 

[Netserk]

Indeed, in that section it's OK, not here.

I make no allegation of doping, so it's not reserved for the clinic.

 

[shadowrider]

Reality is starting to slap them in the face

Which reality ? Top 5 in the GC not possible ? He finished third today, 25 seconds behind the two monsters. Without major breakdowns a top 5 is still possible.
Reality is starting to slap in the face of the fans of Rodriguez, Jorgenson, Ayuso, Adam Yates. All candidates of a top 5 in the GC. They should worry now.

 

[Netserk]

Nah what was super clear is Evenepoel was like halfway down the peloton when he even signaled and then he got the time of a 15 man group 8 seconds down.

And the clear inference is that he was so far down because he had kept riding on a punctured wheel until he was within the last 3 km.

 

[Berniece]

And the clear inference is that he was so far down because he had kept riding on a punctured wheel until he was within the last 3 km.

Of which you have no proof

 

[shadowrider]

Will be at least 2 minutes from Pogacar to 2nd place on the stage. Anyone saying the Tour is not over is deluding themselves

2nd in GC will be 3+ minutes behind Pog after this stage

Well, you're not really an expert, are you ?

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I can't see why it's insulting to claim Remco "cheated" back then. It wasn't why he won the race, and his opponents would probably have done the same (Roglič would have been better off if he had).

 

[SHAD0W93]

I thought Evenepoel had said after that he had been riding on the flat for awhile but I searched it and couldn’t find anything. Though there was also the many cries that Evenepoel faked the flat because he was in poor shape and on his way to lose the Vuelta before Roglic thought he was playing hockey.

 

[Le Grand Doop]

I am happy that Rog seems unscathed.

however, how does this rule work on this stage. Imagine Rog chasing alone and crashes on the same corner. How do you rule what his gap at the finish should be? Does it mean he can simply roll calmly to the finish. this rule makes absolutely no sense on a stage like this.

 

[tobydawq]

Of course it was. A crash on a descent within the last 3 km when not finishing on top of a climb is exactly what is meant to be covered. A puncture more than 3 km from the finish is not.

The rule's intent is obviously to protect riders from getting involved in the carnage and not having crashes or mechanicals of other riders influencing GC riders too much.

 

[RedheadDane]

I am happy that Rog seems unscathed.

however, how does this rule work on this stage. Imaging Rog chasing alone and crashes on the same corner. How do you rule what his gap at the finish should be? Does it mean he can simply roll calmly to the finish. this rule makes absolutely no sense on a stage like this.

He'd get the finish time of the rider in the group he was in when he crashed.


I definitely also thought that if there was a climb close to the finish, the 3-K Rule also didn't apply.

 

[tobydawq]

If this is not exactly the intent of the rule then explain the intent of the rule.

The rule appears to be in effect to limit outsized effects of crashes in the final 3km when groups would normally no longer splinter to the line.

Surely it is to prevent other people's mistakes from influencing on one's GC hopes.

Also, even if that logic falls through the inclusion of mechanicals in that equation, it should not be in place on a stage with an uphill finish.

 

[shadowrider]

The 3 km rule was/is meant for a mechanical or after crashing due to another crash before or during a sprint or because a rider/several riders has/have to brake due to a crash before them.
But the 3 km rule is not meant when crashing through your own fault or when no one else was involved. Another stupid thing is that the top of the official climb was at 2 km of the finish. So having an official climbtop within the 3 km, with an additional arrival at 6% (the last hundred meters) and still apply the 3 km rule ?

 

[RobertCrawley]

At the end of the day, sportsmanship.

View: https://dai.ly/x91w6wq