So you can see how important it is, to sit in the front in the sprint. He won the race due to the spilt in the first stage !
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Ronde van Flausenthurm said:So Białobłocki's final time was initially displayed as 29'25" and then adjusted to 28'45" some minutes later after Kiryienka came in...
Samamba said:A little bit off topic but how does the World Tour team ranking work? I see that Lotto Soudal had 354 point before Poland and now they have 394 point. De Clercq became second today. Doesn't the team get 80 points for that? For example, Lampre Merida got their 40 points for Ulissi's 6th place and Movistar got their 100 points.
Samamba said:A little bit off topic but how does the World Tour team ranking work? I see that Lotto Soudal had 354 point before Poland and now they have 394 point. De Clercq became second today. Doesn't the team get 80 points for that? For example, Lampre Merida got their 40 points for Ulissi's 6th place and Movistar got their 100 points.
PremierAndrew said:Samamba said:A little bit off topic but how does the World Tour team ranking work? I see that Lotto Soudal had 354 point before Poland and now they have 394 point. De Clercq became second today. Doesn't the team get 80 points for that? For example, Lampre Merida got their 40 points for Ulissi's 6th place and Movistar got their 100 points.
Only top 5 riders in the rankings from a team have their points count towards the team's overall points. Previously, De Clerq was not in the top 5 riders for Soudal, and now he displaced whoever was 5th, so they gained 80+ pts from De Clerq but lost the 40-odd points that the guy who was previously 5th had
Have you timed it or is the 3-4 seconds a guess?Billie said:Ronde van Flausenthurm said:So Białobłocki's final time was initially displayed as 29'25" and then adjusted to 28'45" some minutes later after Kiryienka came in...
Kittel started 2 minutes in front him. Came in 3 or 4 seconds ahead of him but in the standings he's at 1'59.
Jagartrott said:Have you timed it or is the 3-4 seconds a guess?Billie said:Ronde van Flausenthurm said:So Białobłocki's final time was initially displayed as 29'25" and then adjusted to 28'45" some minutes later after Kiryienka came in...
Kittel started 2 minutes in front him. Came in 3 or 4 seconds ahead of him but in the standings he's at 1'59.
Was there any explanation for adjusting the eventual winner's time three times?
Arked said:You're all assuming that they started exactly 2 minutes apart from themselves which might not be the case. Also UCI officials are responsible for time measuring, not organizers. But that just me thinking...
Jagartrott said:Have you timed it or is the 3-4 seconds a guess?Billie said:Ronde van Flausenthurm said:So Białobłocki's final time was initially displayed as 29'25" and then adjusted to 28'45" some minutes later after Kiryienka came in...
Kittel started 2 minutes in front him. Came in 3 or 4 seconds ahead of him but in the standings he's at 1'59.
Was there any explanation for adjusting the eventual winner's time three times?
Billie said:Arked said:You're all assuming that they started exactly 2 minutes apart from themselves which might not be the case. Also UCI officials are responsible for time measuring, not organizers. But that just me thinking...
It doesn't matter when they start. It's when their timing starts. And the timing starts every minute. So yes Kittel's time started exactly 2 minutes 0 seconds before Bialoblocki's.
Cyclinghub made a video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNOX_kQ1SA
2.4.013 The start may be determined by the front tyre making contact with an electronic timing
strip on the start line. If the rider starts fractionally before the countdown reaches 0 or in the following 5 seconds the time it is triggered is used. If the rider starts after this 5 second delay has elapsed or in the event of problems with the electronic timing, the rider's time shall be counted as from the start of manual timing following the countdown.
kind of a disappointing end of the discussionroundabout said:Billie said:Arked said:You're all assuming that they started exactly 2 minutes apart from themselves which might not be the case. Also UCI officials are responsible for time measuring, not organizers. But that just me thinking...
It doesn't matter when they start. It's when their timing starts. And the timing starts every minute. So yes Kittel's time started exactly 2 minutes 0 seconds before Bialoblocki's.
Cyclinghub made a video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNOX_kQ1SA
2.4.013 The start may be determined by the front tyre making contact with an electronic timing
strip on the start line. If the rider starts fractionally before the countdown reaches 0 or in the following 5 seconds the time it is triggered is used. If the rider starts after this 5 second delay has elapsed or in the event of problems with the electronic timing, the rider's time shall be counted as from the start of manual timing following the countdown.
That's what the rules say, so that may explain what actually happened
SkyTears said:Lol Bialoblocki, this is so weird , 1st time under Kirienka , 2nd time 4 secs faster now 1 sec faster
i'm curious if betting firms will payout on this "amazing" ride
not to talk about the hilarity of his time, if the real time is near displayed time.
De Snelle Duif said:Told you guys he could TT. Nice one by him!Dekker_Tifosi said:Hermans 3 seconds short... ouch
SkyTears said:so as i suspected first time the organizers cheated so the polish guy get the win.
Tank Engine said:SkyTears said:so as i suspected first time the organizers cheated so the polish guy get the win.
The Polish commentators stated that the director of the Polish team had questioned the original time as it was an obvious error and gave the organisers his measure. The commentators then said that they had no reason not to believe the Polish manager, seemingly without irony. However, from my experience Polish often don't understand British irony, so maybe Brits don't understand Polish irony