Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2022, stage 16: Sanlúcar de Barrameda - Tomares, 189.4k

[VayaVayaVaya]

Looks like he did not see Fred Wright, as others speculated. Damn. What a huge effort. Like Contador, he will be a legend larger than his palmares. The inverse of Froome, who stands smaller than his.

 

[EliseeReclus]

If he punctured before 3 km to go, was it unsportsmanlike of Evenepoel to not stop until he was within 3 km to go?

How do we define the event of a puncture? Is it when the tyre first loses pressure, when the rider notices that the tyre has lost pressure or when the rider decides that the pressure loss is so significant that they should change wheel/bike?

For me the only real answer is the third as it is the only one which is actually verifiable for commissaires to evaluate (and then they can check mechanical problems/punctures after the finish if necessary) - in which case there's nothing unsportsmanlike in my view.

 

[Netserk]

How do we define the event of a puncture? Is it when the tyre first loses pressure, when the rider notices that the tyre has lost pressure or when the rider decides that the pressure loss is so significant that they should change wheel/bike?

For me the only real answer is the third as it is the only one which is actually verifiable for commissaires to evaluate (and then they can check mechanical problems/punctures after the finish if necessary) - in which case there's nothing unsportsmanlike in my view.

The mechanical incident is the moment there is a hole.

 

[SHAD0W93]

When are we going to be able to see every riders tire pressure and position like NASCAR and Formula One.

 

[EliseeReclus]

The mechanical incident is the moment there is a hole.

In which case it is completely impossible to know when it occurs.

 

[Netserk]

In which case it is completely impossible to know when it occurs.

When exactly it happens is of course impossible to know, but that is the case for several rules. It's the job of the commissaires to approximate when it happened. The rule says "victims of an accident in the last 3 kilometres [...]". The hole in the wheel is the accident.

 

[Salvarani]

Vuelta is over.

 

[EliseeReclus]

When exactly it happens is of course impossible to know, but that is the case for several rules. It's the job of the commissaires to approximate when it happened. The rule says "victims of an accident in the last 3 kilometres [...]". The hole in the wheel is the accident.

The wording is as follows:

In the event that a rider or riders suffer a fall, puncture or mechanical incident in the last 3 kilometers and such an incident is duly recognized, the rider or riders involved are credited with the same finishing time of the rider or riders they were with at the time of the incident.

Again it depends on how you define incident, and the only verifiable moment for mechanical problems is when the rider calls for assistance/stops to change the bike, as it is always possible to continue through the mechanical problem at the rider's discretion.

 

[Zoetemelk-fan]

Justt watched last 6k during lunch break.
Absolutely heartbraking witnessing Roglic' crash - had so deserved non-neutralized times.
And again an impressive pull from Pedersen, just riding other sprinters off the wheel.
2nd time makes me wonder what a Pedersen in his present shape could do at this kind of finishes against likewise in-shape Wout, Ala, VdP around him...a pity he rejected a worlds offer but family apparently calls.

 

[Netserk]

The wording is as follows:

In the event that a rider or riders suffer a fall, puncture or mechanical incident in the last 3 kilometers and such an incident is duly recognized, the rider or riders involved are credited with the same finishing time of the rider or riders they were with at the time of the incident.

Again it depends on how you define incident, and the only verifiable moment for mechanical problems is when the rider calls for assistance/stops to change the bike, as it is always possible to continue through the mechanical problem at the rider's discretion.

The incident in question would fall under "puncture". A puncture is a hole in the tube. It happened when the tube was pierced.

...

The only verifiable way to control TUEs is to control the paperwork that is filed. So was Armstrong's TUE in violation of the rules? He ended up with the correct paperwork.

 

[EliseeReclus]

The incident in question would fall under "puncture". A puncture is a hole in the tube. It happened when the tube was pierced.

Okay, so tell me exactly when the tyre was pierced in this instance?

 

[Netserk]

Okay, so tell me exactly when the tyre was pierced in this instance?

I already answered that. It's impossible to know when exactly. It's the job of the commissaires to approximate it. They only need to approximate it well enough to call whether or not it happened in the last 3 km, they don't need to be exact.

 

[EliseeReclus]

I already answered that. It's impossible to know when exactly. It's the job of the commissaires to approximate it. They only need to approximate it well enough to call whether or not it happened in the last 3 km, they don't need to be exact.

So where no clear evidence where the puncture took place until the rider stops/signals, what should be done?

 

[Netserk]

So where no clear evidence where the puncture took place until the rider stops/signals, what should be done?

The same as when the commissaires apply any other rule. Use all information available to the best of their ability to approximate whether or not the rule to their best interpretation applies to the current situation.

If the rules didn't need judgement, there wouldn't be any commissaires.

 

[EliseeReclus]

The same as when the commissaires apply any other rule. Use all information available to the best of their ability to approximate whether or not the rule to their best interpretation applies to the current situation.

In which case yesterday as there was no evidence of a loss of tyre pressure before 3km to go, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the rider?

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Coquard has also left the race now.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567423896021831681

View: https://twitter.com/TeamCOFIDIS/status/1567423896021831681

 

[Netserk]

As a spectator I will also try to judge whether or not something would fall inside or outside of the rules. I don't claim to have the same expertise as the commissaires nor the same information available, but I will still try to form an opinion.

My opinion is that Armstrong's TUE was bogus and in violation of the rules. Is it valid for me to have an opinion on that? Or must we say that all TUEs that have been granted are correct? I mean, the paperwork ended up correct, so all was above board?

I likewise think the puncture happened outside 3 km to go, and that Evenepoel gamed the rules just like Armstrong did.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

In which case yesterday as there was no evidence of a loss of tyre pressure before 3km to go, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the rider?

Evenepoel does the segment on Strava 4s faster than Fred Wright, who finished in Roglic' group, at the top of the steepest part which is where he gained those 4s. It is highly unlikely he would be able to do so with a flat/flattening tire. And we know the tire was flat, since it is included in the official report as a "verified incident". The Strava segment then shows a sudden drop in speed over the next 140 or so meters. So it's safe to assume -again knowing the puncture was verified- that that was the moment he punctured. That would put him 140m back from the moment he stopped, which should still have been within 3k of the finish. Furthermore, him doing the actual steepest part of the climb 4s faster than Wright who was able to follow Roglic, would indicate that it would have been moronic of Evenepoel to fake a puncture, considering he was likely one of the fastest riders on the road at that moment at that point.

 

[EliseeReclus]

I'm not stopping you having an opinion, I just think it's pretty pointless to be pontificating and dealing in daft hypotheticals about what most evidence (as logic points out) shows was a legitimate application of the rules, and at the very worst was a minor infraction against a rule (which IMO still fits within the spirit of the rule is there for) and comparing it to someone who was a systematic doper.

 

[Netserk]

dealing in daft hypotheticals about what most evidence (as logic points out) shows was a legitimate application of the rules

Yeah, we disagree about that. I find it far more likely that he punctured outside of 3 km to go than inside. In light of knowing that he had a puncture, I find his sudden drop of positioning from what could actually be seen from race footage more informative than his strava file.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567202856955936769

View: https://twitter.com/albercampos_/status/1567202856955936769

 

[Netserk]

Evenepoel does the segment on Strava 4s faster than Fred Wright, who finished in Roglic' group, at the top of the steepest part which is where he gained those 4s. It is highly unlikely he would be able to do so with a flat/flattening tire. And we know the tire was flat, since it is included in the official report as a "verified incident". The Strava segment then shows a sudden drop in speed over the next 140 or so meters. So it's safe to assume -again knowing the puncture was verified- that that was the moment he punctured. That would put him 140m back from the moment he stopped, which should still have been within 3k of the finish. Furthermore, him doing the actual steepest part of the climb 4s faster than Wright who was able to follow Roglic, would indicate that it would have been moronic of Evenepoel to fake a puncture, considering he was likely one of the fastest riders on the road at that moment at that point.

Evenepoel must never have cheated, therefore he didn't cheat.

 

[Gratemans]

The incident in question would fall under "puncture". A puncture is a hole in the tube. It happened when the tube was pierced.

...

The only verifiable way to control TUEs is to control the paperwork that is filed. So was Armstrong's TUE in violation of the rules? He ended up with the correct paperwork.

You're conveniently ignoring the "and such an incident is duly recognized" part there.I'd say that's when he puts his hand up and you can check the footage to confirm he has a flat.

That being said, I get the distinct feeling the puncture happened way before. QS were nowhere to be seen from what, about 6 or 7k out? Absolutely nowhere. I have a hard time believing it was just bad positioning. I feel it was them dragging Remco to the 3k line. I don't really care that much though, to me that's fair game.
Faking a mechanical isn't of course but he clearly wasn't faking it as the video of the bikeswap showed.

It's Primoz' crash that I care about. Such a damn shame. All the excitement gone from the race just like that.

 

[Netserk]

I don't really care that much though, to me that's fair game.

And gaming TUEs are fair to others.

 

[LookProGoSlow]

Never expected the forum meltdown would look like this

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It's amazing how some people are able to write, without being able to read.