UCI Road World Championships 21st-29th September 2019 - Yorkshire - Race Thread.

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It was on live TV.

According to what the jury has said, the actual transgression was not live on tv.

 

[Derry]

According to the jury he drafted 10 to 15 seconds behind a car. This happens 50 times a day. I really don't understand why all of a sudden this is such a big deal?

 

[Escarabajo]

It was on live TV.

I haven't seen anything of live TV that is worth disqualification.

 

[GuntherL]

Latest statement: the jury based the disqualification on images that were not broadcasted live. They also showed them to the Dutch Federation and they agreed with the decision. I'd like to hear that from them before I believe the UCI.

 

[Red Rick]

Latest statement: the jury based the disqualification on images that were not broadcasted live. They also showed them to the Dutch Federation and they agreed with the decision. I'd like to hear that from them before I believe the UCI.

They're probably just *** **** and hoping VdP wins come Sunday so we all collectively forget this clusterfuck

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

According to the jury he drafted 10 to 15 seconds behind a car. This happens 50 times a day. I really don't understand why all of a sudden this is such a big deal?

They literally said it was NOT just 10-15 seconds.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I haven't seen anything of live TV that is worth disqualification.

Which is what they said, that the reason for DSQ, the actual transgression, was not on live TV.

 

[DNP-Old]

Yeah, there's one thing that doesn't add up.
1). the decision was made to ''safe the image of the sport''
2). the images used to make said decision weren't broadcasted

 

[Breezy1985]

You do realise we're joking about Froome.

Im not

 

[Danskebjerge]

Having seen that several ex dopers are criticizing the jury's decision, I'm confident that the jury did the right thing.

 

[Rollthedice]

You do realise we're joking about Froome.

Yes. But the post has to be corrected, Froome was holding onto a moto and not a car. Since at that point in his illustrious career he was a mere mortal hanging on for dear life or a moto in grueling Grand Tours, his DSQ is far more anonymous than Nibali's Formula One take-off.

 

[Red Rick]

Having seen that several ex dopers are criticizing the jury's decision, I'm confident that the jury did the right thing.

I hopes you realise how twisted this logic is.

 

[Leinster]

Have to agree - DSQ him at the time, they only had 124km to do it. If none of the race officials saw the offense, then Tough - he should keep his win. He also had an influence in the outcome of the race.
Evidence from non race officials should be in-admissible. The UCI have once again left themselves looking totally amateur & clueless.

Could it have been from transponder data that they maybe couldn’t access until after the race?

Yes, the race would have been raced differently had he been dq’ed at the time of the offense, but it’s not like a DQ after the fact is anything new in any sport, cycling in particular.

 

[Lemonbaloon]

So if UCI had Dq'ed him earlier. The chasing group would never have made it back to the guys at the front and the entire result is now "corrupted".

 

[JosephK]

I still am not sure what to think about the disqualification. The footage of Eekhoff's return to the peloton after the crash shows him weaving in and out of the cars, which seems fine, and then at the end of the clip he is starting to get what looks like a sticky bottle from his team car--and then the clip ends. From that footage, I don't see how anything can be concluded. If he got a sticky bottle for a few seconds, that happens all the time in races, including world tour events, and it's usually not penalized. Also, in considering drafting help from cars, don't the commissaires usually differentiate between a rider who has crashed and a rider who has lost the peloton because of racing events (not a crash or mechanical)? In general, there usually seems to be some reluctance to penalize a crashed rider who is getting a bit of drafting help to return to the peloton.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I still am not sure what to think about the disqualification. The footage of Eekhoff's return to the peloton after the crash shows him weaving in and out of the cars, which seems fine, and then at the end of the clip he is starting to get what looks like a sticky bottle from his team car--and then the clip ends. From that footage, I don't see how anything can be concluded. If he got a sticky bottle for a few seconds, that happens all the time in races, including world tour events, and it's usually not penalized.

They are saying the footage they have based their decision on, was not broadcast on TV, so the footage you saw, was not the true/full transgression. (This is what UCI says).

 

[HelloDolly]

Well let them show us the transgression laced footage then if they have it

I am no supporter of Froome but c'mon joking is usually funny ...that is how one knows its a joke ...

 

[markene2]

He was banned for drafting, not a sticky bottle, just the Anglos making sure one of their own is on the podium, hope him and the agent wins the lawsuit.

Here are UCI's own rules of what to do in case a rider taking advantage of a slipstream behind a vehicle, make up your own minds.

 

[Rollthedice]

From CN : "The UCI has declined to release the full video footage, but has told Cyclingnews that the rider drafted behind the team car for over 30 seconds but less than a minute, although Eekhoff's coach later admitted that the time spent behind the car was closer to two minutes."

Case closed, the coach must be fired.

Also "The incident was immediately reported by the VAR to the jury, but could not be checked until after Eekhoff and the rest of the lead group had crossed the line."

Somehow they were sure that Eekhoff will not win.

 

[postmanhat]

Pidcock's knee at the end. No wonder he's not in a rush to turn pro

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah, there's one thing that doesn't add up.
1). the decision was made to ''safe the image of the sport''
2). the images used to make said decision weren't broadcasted

It's UCI UCIng.

I don't think we're talkinb about incompetence. They frankly don't give a *** about the image of the sport.

 

[Danskebjerge]

I hopes you realise how twisted this logic is.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Red Rick]

From CN : "The UCI has declined to release the full video footage, but has told Cyclingnews that the rider drafted behind the team car for over 30 seconds but less than a minute, although Eekhoff's coach later admitted that the time spent behind the car was closer to two minutes."

Case closed, the coach must be fired.

Also "The incident was immediately reported by the VAR to the jury, but could not be checked until after Eekhoff and the rest of the lead group had crossed the line."

Somehow they were sure that Eekhoff will not win.

Nah man let's not release the footage.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

So a bunch of shortsockfetish old men, that nobody wants to run cycling, get to run cycling and ruin it at the same time? Gutted for Eekhoff and Battistella because they will always be remembered for this.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Also "The incident was immediately reported by the VAR to the jury, but could not be checked until after Eekhoff and the rest of the lead group had crossed the line."

VAR takes over an hour in cycling ? That's even slower than in football