But was that because the break was weak but because such a weak break was allowed to make it by such a soporific péloton? I feel like the riders in that weak break were the winners that that stage deserved because it was raced so awfully.
After all, I hate the Mont Aigoual stage in 2020 and its aftermath has led to a three year hate affair. But I don't hate the Mont Aigoual stage in 2020 because of Alexey Lutsenko (who of course is a perfectly good mountain stage breakaway winner, more akin to the likes of Rafał Majka or Mikel Nieve as mountain stage winners than the likes of Bais or Madrazo), Jesús Herrada, Neilson Powless or Greg van Avermaet, but because of the GC men behind who rode a climb like that in such a fashion as to lose time to the break.
I feel that while the low quality of the break serves to exacerbate things in the Gran Sasso stage, it isn't about people hating on Mattia Bais for winning, but hating on the racing being in such a negative fashion that Mattia Bais was even in the mix for winning the stage, so that his winning became emblematic of how poorly it was raced. Like Hesjedal winning the Giro after being in poor form in week 1 and nobody taking any initiative to attempt to gain any time or distance any contenders, or Gerrans winning Liège-Bastogne-Liège after pretty much zero attacks by anybody all day, it was like, here's the meme champion that this race deserves.
That's how I saw it, anyway, YMMV.