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

[Netserk]

Obviously there's no reason to criticize the rule on flat stages. Having it on this stage is fairly unusual. Hence the discussion.

It's not unusual at all. It's like this for all mountain stages that don't finish on the top of a climb. It was the same with the same finish in 2016.

It has been like this ever since the rule was in place.

 

[fbjim]

Can I ignore every post about "mind games", "favorites", "form", "3 kilometer rules", and above all, "balls", and say that this was an incredible stage and these last few years of the Tour have been some of the most exciting since I started watching cycling? Because they are. Don't like to get gushy but I had to.

 

[Netserk]

Time for steepest part of Peyrol and full Pertus together based on the tracker, from @velofacts:

19'30" Vingegaard
19'53" Pogi +23"
20'23" Rogla +53"
20'37" Evenepoel +1'07"
21'11" Kelderman +1'41"
21'12" Landa +1'42"
21'26" Rodríguez +1'56"
21'28" Ciccone +1'58"
21'29" Almeida +1'59"
21'29" Yates, A. +1'59"
21'31" Gall +2'01"
21'54" Gee +2'24"
21'56" Yates, S. +2'26"
22'06" Romo +2'36"
22'22" Buitrago +2'52"
22'43" Jorgenson +3'13"
22'48" Ayuso +3'18"
22'53" Bernal +3'23"
22'57" Healy(!) +3'27"
22'58" Cras +3'28"

Last year neither Rogla nor Evenepoel were in the Tour, and the gaps look similar to last year if you take them out. And it hardly looks like Pogi "bonked".

 

[RedheadDane]

As stated in my hypothetical -- what if Rog were alone (i.e. not in any group) and crashed at the same corner -- how do they decide what his gap at the finish is?

It was a joke...
The rider in the group he was in would be... himself.

 

[fbjim]

Where do you actually find out what stages have the 3km rule in effect, the road book?

Was curious to see if it was in place at Morzine last year (I assume so), or Courchevel (I assume not?)

 

[Netserk]

Where do you actually find out what stages have the 3km rule in effect, the road book?

Was curious to see if it was in place at Morzine last year (I assume so), or Courchevel (I assume not?)

Indeed.

This measure does not apply:
for the finish of the stage 16 individual time trial;
for the summit finishes on stages 6, 9, 13, 15 and 17.

From the "Rules and Regulations"

 

[fbjim]

anyway i think Roglic looked very good today compared to the opening of the race, and that this crash was actually expert mind games to get everyone to laugh at him and underestimate him, and mask his true form, before he smashes the field for 3:30 in the final ITT

 

[fbjim]

Uh...2 guys is not a "reduced bunch sprint". The rule was in place on this stage because of the dangerous descent. Which is unusual if not unprecedented.

I do not believe this is true. Someone can contradict me if they want, but I believe this rule is generally in place on finishes which are not considered MTFs or "MTF-esque" (I am going to assume it would not apply to a finish in Mende just because of the flat final KM). I don't think it has anything to do with this particular descent.

I'm not trying to single you out here but I have heard a few places say that the 3KM rule on this stage was specifically because of the "dangerous descent" and that is not true. I'm assuming some of those people are the ones who want to ban descending.

 

[tobydawq]

Time for steepest part of Peyrol and full Pertus together based on the tracker, from @velofacts:

19'30" Vingegaard
19'53" Pogi +23"
20'23" Rogla +53"
20'37" Evenepoel +1'07"
21'11" Kelderman +1'41"
21'12" Landa +1'42"
21'26" Rodríguez +1'56"
21'28" Ciccone +1'58"
21'29" Almeida +1'59"
21'29" Yates, A. +1'59"
21'31" Gall +2'01"
21'54" Gee +2'24"
21'56" Yates, S. +2'26"
22'06" Romo +2'36"
22'22" Buitrago +2'52"
22'43" Jorgenson +3'13"
22'48" Ayuso +3'18"
22'53" Bernal +3'23"
22'57" Healy(!) +3'27"
22'58" Cras +3'28"

Last year neither Rogla nor Evenepoel were in the Tour, and the gaps look similar to last year if you take them out. And it hardly looks like Pogi "bonked".

I agree that he didn't bonk, that's too strong of a word. But I think there is a continuum between optimally fuelled and completely depleted and he was somewhere in there (probably closer to the former than the latter). Primarily based on the fact that he lost the sprint.

I also think that he might have gone too hard with his initial attack in an attempt, setting an unsustainable pace, to lure Jonas into desperation mode and cracking. He did not succeed in that.

 

[tobydawq]

That's what I mean. They should not make a race of it today. They should just let a break go and fight for it. There won't be any decisive changes in GC today anyway, the hills are not long enough at the end so all favourites will finish together 99% of the time. Just let others fight for the stage and leave the GC fight for the harder stages.

Where do you stand on this now?

 

[Netserk]

I agree that he didn't bonk, that's too strong of a word. But I think there is a continuum between optimally fuelled and completely depleted and he was somewhere in there (probably closer to the former than the latter). Primarily based on the fact that he lost the sprint.

I also think that he might have gone too hard with his initial attack in an attempt, setting an unsustainable pace, to lure Jonas into desperation mode and cracking. He did not succeed in that.

Yeah, Yates and then Pogi went mighty fast on Peyrol, 7" quicker than Pogi and Rogla in 2020 when the finish was at the top.

 

[Valv.Piti]

It was also in effect in stage 4. Which means they very specifically decided it wasn't only about bunch sprints.

Which is obviously stupid, but okay. Rules are rules. It still doesn't seem fair at all and thats what people have a problem with. VAR is also the law, and most people have a problem with how it is applied at times or just flat out have a problem with with it period.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Stage 11 was not a summit finish and it ended with a reduced bunch sprint. So really nothing out of the ordinary here. Organizer made the right call.

A reduced bunch sprint he said. Haha!

 

[Rackham]

The km rules have been slightly expanded for this Tour.

I haven't heard any GC teams or leaders complaining about getting 5km & 4km in sprint stages last week either.

Everyone is basically happy with these changes when it suits their own interests, when not, they tend to start ranting.

 

[Valv.Piti]

The km rules have been slightly expanded for this Tour.

I haven't heard any GC teams or leaders complaining about getting 5km & 4km in sprint stages last week either.

Everyone is basically happy with these changes when it suits their own interests, when not, they tend to start ranting.

No, thats not how it works. Most rational posters have a problem with the rule because in this instance, it's obviously not a fair application of the rule. People don't understand why Roglic should get Remco's finishing time when he himself made the error in an instance like that which groups spread all over the Massif Central and when there's no guarantee that they will actually finish together with a small kicker in the end. The ONLY people actually defending the rule are the hardcore Roglic-fans that deep inside know the rule in this instance don't make much sense, but will choose to ignore that fact because it benefits them in this instance.

Its a well stupid application of the rule on this stage, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

 

[Rackham]

Its a well stupid application of the rule on this stage, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Not really. Stage 11 was given the 3km rule before the Tour.

I can see why, even looking beyond my own hardcore Rogla fandom. The same stage finish in 2016 is a case study, i.e. a group of 19 riders with all the GC favorites finished together. If you're in that group & something happens on that tricky descent, then you get classified with the same time. No one would have cared back then if Warren Barguil had decked it on the last corner & then was given the same time as Sergio Henao.

The only thing which made people raise eyebrows yesterday was the fact the GC battle had exploded on Puy Mary already 30km earlier, so the field was spread very thin with 4 riders head & shoulders above the rest engaged in a battle against each other.

The UCI cannot accurately predict which stages will feature huge battles like that where riders are in groups of two instead of 18. They can guess, but clearly they chose a safety first approach in this Tour (hence the extension of the 3km rule to 4km & 5km in most sprint stages).

 

[Netserk]

No, thats not how it works. Most rational posters have a problem with the rule because in this instance, it's obviously not a fair application of the rule. People don't understand why Roglic should get Remco's finishing time when he himself made the error in an instance like that which groups spread all over the Massif Central and when there's no guarantee that they will actually finish together with a small kicker in the end. The ONLY people actually defending the rule are the hardcore Roglic-fans that deep inside know the rule in this instance don't make much sense, but will choose to ignore that fact because it benefits them in this instance.

Its a well stupid application of the rule on this stage, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

It's the standard application of the rule, always has been.

 

[Berflamand]

The 3km rule applied in this stage raises a few 'what if' questions for me:

- What if Roglic had been all alone when he crashed? This is probably the easiest question. He would have been given his real finishing time.
- What if Roglic had been 5 seconds behind Remco when he crashed? I guess he would have been given his real time as well.
- What if Roglic had been 5 seconds in front of Remco when he crashed and Remco passed him before he could get going again? Would he have got Remco's time? I guess so.
- What if Roglic was in front of Remco and thus made Remco crash or hold up as well and they didn't finish in the same time? Would they in any case have got the same time as the first rider between the two who finishes?

It might be the standard and correct application of the rule but it does feel really strange to apply it in this particular case.

Roglic was lucky to have been able to use it in the best possible way. Being in the wheel of someone he didn't hinder with his crash and who pushed it all the way to the line as hard as possible and subsequently getting that same time.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

The 3km rule applied in this stage raises a few 'what if' questions for me:

- What if Roglic had been all alone when he crashed? This is probably the easiest question. He would have been given his real finishing time.
- What if Roglic had been 5 seconds behind Remco when he crashed? I guess he would have been given his real time as well.
- What if Roglic had been 5 seconds in front of Remco when he crashed and Remco passed him before he could get going again? Would he have got Remco's time? I guess so.
- What if Roglic was in front of Remco and thus made Remco crash or hold up as well and they didn't finish in the same time? Would they in any case have got the same time as the first rider between the two who finishes?

It might be the standard and correct application of the rule but it does feel really strange to apply it in this particular case.

Roglic was lucky to have been able to use it in the best possible way. Being in the wheel of someone he didn't hinder with his crash and who pushed it all the way to the line as hard as possible and subsequently getting that same time.

I believe if Roglič had dropped Remco he wouldn‘t have gotten the same time, actually, there‘s no rule for that.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Not the rule on "every other stage". If you're gonna scold people, being totally wrong may not be a good look.

Obviously there's no reason to criticize the rule on flat stages. Having it on this stage is fairly unusual. Hence the discussion.

It's not remotely unusual to have it on this stage. It is the rule by default, and hilltop/summit finishes are the exception. Race organisers don't have to specify which stages it will be applied on: determining the finish to be a climb does that. I guess that is why flat stages ending in a short sharp climb (to make for a puncheur-friendly stage rather than yet another for a heavyweight sprinter) don't give cat 4 points on the line.
By my reading of the rules, it should apply even where the points line is shortly before the finish line (think of Mt Faron finish in the Classic Var this year, where Lenny Martinez mugged Tobias Johannessen at the end, after the Norwegian mistook the KOM line for the finish line 100m beyond it. That was a 1.1, so not an issue there, but we have seen that type of layout).
I guess that if the organisers wanted the rule to apply here, they could have made the finish a cat 4. Maybe if the rule is not rewritten, we will see that in a number of stages next year.

What is unusual is for it to come into play on a stage like this. As @Gigs_98 said, not the application that was envisaged when the rule was drafted. I would, though, dispute with him whether it was "stubbornly applied": it is not at the race organisers' discretion, and they would have been open to all sorts of accusations if the rule was ignored when it should not have been.

UCI are usually more keen to react after flaws are exposed than at trying to predict when their rules might be badly written, so expect a re-write of this one at their conference around the time of the World Championships (either road book to identify when it applies, or clearer "unless stage ends with, or has within last 3 km, a categorised climb")


But it undoubtedly was a rule here, so there is no real controversy.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

No, thats not how it works. Most rational posters have a problem with the rule because in this instance, it's obviously not a fair application of the rule. ...

Its a well stupid application of the rule on this stage, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Once the rule exists, the only unfair thing is to not apply it. It is an objective matter: there was an incident and it was in the last km, and the stage did not finish with a designated climb.

It's not a stupid application: it is the only legal application. It might be a stupidly written rule, but that's nobody's fault this week.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Marcel Kittel didn't like Remco Evenepoel's 'push' for Primoz Roglic: "It's disrespectful in my eyes"

Remco Evenepoel gave Primoz Roglic a little push during stage eleven of the Tour de France. Evenepoel seemed to urge Roglic to ride extra hard at the front in order to catch back to the leading duo (T...

cyclinguptodate.com

Kittel puts it like it is. One thing is to be flamboyant with your words and in interviews, starting to push riders in the peloton, that is crossing the boundary.

P.S. I see some of you are still crying about the rule. Well, it's a crash rule, if you crash you get the same time, as do the rider affected by the crash and the circumstances, on where such rule applies, are known. People now acting like they don't get that, arguing the rule should not apply here, due to Rogla crashing. Gosh. Let me guess, the anti Rogla peanut gallery?

 

[CyclistAbi]

Let me just say i for one am happy the rule was applied yesterday and have 0 issues with that.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Let me just say i for one am happy the rule was applied yesterday and have 0 issues with that.

What a surprise.

Also, what is that kinda nonsense that Kittel is spewing?

 

[tobydawq]

What a surprise.

Also, what is that kinda nonsense that Kittel is spewing?

I have to say I also found the push really weird.