WAITING or NO WAITING -

[SafeBet]

I don't mind Sky deciding to wait.
What I mind is Rolland being called public enemy number one for his attack while everybody was waiting.

 

[hiero2]

. . .
My view is that waiting is not appropriate. It was never before in cycling. . . .

I think that is the part you got wrong. I think it has been a part of cycling for a long time. Sometimes the riders wait if they think some part of the incident is not "part of the game". Like Cancellara and that slippery and terrifying descent that precipitated that action. Or like tacks in the road.

The riders are people with brains of their own. Sometimes they take action. That much has always been true.

If the peleton chooses to be sporting about circumstances, then so be it. Get over it crybaby.

Thanks a lot for the classy and substantiated contribution to this thread.

On this one, I agree with la.margna on this - because of one word. PhiberAwptik had a great and reasonable reply, but spoiled it by one word at the end - where he makes a personal attack. Not polite - bad forum manners. Still, if that is the worst he has to throw, that ain't too bad, eh?

 

[la.margna]

Wasn't one of Lance's early wins basically down to the USPS drilling it on a flat stage after a crash held up a lot of the contenders ?

Yes, a few GC contenders including Escartin and Zülle (who finished second 7:37 behind LA) lost a bit more than six minutes after the crash in the Passage du Gois, while Lance's boys were pushing hard.

EDIT:
quote NYT: "One reason was that the contenders in the front group, including Armstrong, Abraham Olano of ONCE, Pavel Tonkov of Mapei and Bobby Julich of Cofidis, realized that they had a chance to leave some formidable rivals far behind and spurred their teammates into hyperspeed. "
In addition to Escartin and Zülle, Gotti and Boogerd were also back in that group that lost 6:03 on the day's winner

 

[la.margna]

I give up. Seems 90% of the posters don't read my posts entirely.

Again, it's not about yesterday's incident!

It's a thing of the past. It's over.

-When should they stop/neutralise? For 5 riders? for 10? for 20? where draw the line?

-Who should be in charge?

 

[la.margna]

I think that is the part you got wrong. I think it has been a part of cycling for a long time.

Just reading Jean-Francois Bernard in L'Equipe where he says that during his time as active professional, nobody ever waited. But I agree, during these times they were never confronted with a terrorist attack like yesterday (sorry, that now it's me who refers to yesterday again).

In a similar context, anybody remembers Bernard Hinault punching some workers or farmers once when trying to stop the peloton during their protests, similar things happened during the giro di padania a year or two ago (political reasons).

On the other hand, saw last week on FR2 in "miroir du tour" how in the late 50's on a hot day in a stage to Menton, the maillot jaune decided to stop quickly at a beach and go for a short swim into the sea. About half of the bunch did it!

Also the guys back at that time who stopped quickly by at a restaurant to get a bottle of beer or water or took a quick bath in the village's fountain. Different times.

 

[Warhawk]

I give up. Seems 90% of the posters don't read my posts entirely.

Again, it's not about yesterday's incident!

It's a thing of the past. It's over.

-When should they stop/neutralise? For 5 riders? for 10? for 20? where draw the line?

-Who should be in charge?

You can't just start a debate on a subject and then arbitrarily prohibit discussion of the most recent and one of the most notable examples of that subject. Especially considering both of the questions you're asking there are very obviously inspired by that incident.

 

[Ildabaoth]

I think the main thing is nobody is forced to wait, even if somebody points out that it was Wiggins who made the decision. After all, any other team could have refused and started worked themselves. Indeed, there is a blur line, since the peloton doesn't always wait, but it is up to them to decide when to wait or when to take advantage of a situation and it is up to the fans to have an opinion whether they did wrong or not.

The problem is, many fans think it is wrong to attack when the victim is one of their favorite cyclists, but it is right otherwise. That is just hypocritical. There isn't a rule about when to wait and that, for me, is one of the most beautiful things of cycling.

Speaking of that, I remember something that happened 3 years ago during La Vuelta a Colombia. In a normal flat stage, Fabio Duarte got a flat tire about 50 km from the finish line. UNE-EPM and Lotería de Boyacá started working hard so to gap him and the work of both teams was too much for Colombia es Pasión, so Duarte ended losing 7 minutes and Javier González (Lotería de Boyacá) got the yellow jersey. Just the day after that, González crashed while climbing Alto de Minas and quite a few number of teams, remembering what has happened the day before, took heavy turns in the front, making González lose more than 9 minutes and any hope to win the GC.

 

[avanti]

i didn't mean yesterday, but earlier in the tour they tried to slow things down for cavendish to get back on after a lump in the road

Trying to slow the peloton down to allow a rider to catch up or to help a breakaway rider is part of cycling strategy.

 

[Panda Claws]

Why do you want rules for everything? Cycling is a relatively 'free' sport and we really don't need rules for everything.

That is what people meant with the 'NASCAR race' comments, because there it is all governed.

 

[la.margna]

Why do you want rules for everything? Cycling is a relatively 'free' sport and we really don't need rules for everything.

I guess the world and the UCI don't care about what I want, to be honest
I just wanted to see what others think about it, as discretionary decisions during a race open up a tremendous potential for polemics and unfairness. But probably I should simply do a poll next time, it seems. [@Danilot with just one answer to select that everyone agrees with me, right? ]

That is what people meant with the 'NASCAR race' comments, because there it is all governed.

Ok, understood. As European, I have no clue about NASCAR and I (as it now seems incorrectly) assumed it was intended to accuse me that I think crashes or such unfortunate events are cool.

 

[Angliru]

If the peleton chooses to be sporting about circumstances, then so be it. Get over it crybaby.

Is this at all necessary?

 

[CobbleStoner]

bottom line is the peloton doesn't care what a bunch of posters on a cycling board tell them they should do, the peloton has a tradition to uphold to, there is a boss, it is a team sport, you put your life and safety in the hands of competitors when riding together, there is still respect in the peloton. more things need to be left to the peloton (a return to old school values), that is what makes cycling great

 

[patrick767]

Funny, the sportsmanship as displayed in yesterday's stage is one of the things I love about cycling. It's sad to see people complain that that makes the riders "p*ssies". No. It makes them great sports. They don't want to win for such a bogus reason. The course was sabotaged. 30+ riders punctured. Team cars got flats. Evans had multiple punctures. Rolland was simply unsportsmanlike to attack in that situation if he was aware of what was going on. His team was wise enough to call him off as it would have been a PR nightmare for them.

Like many others here, I'm reminded of the oil on the road when Cancellara slowed the peloton, of the top contenders waiting for Armstrong when he fell because a fan got too close (a danger all the riders worry about), and when Armstrong waited for Ullrich following the latter's crash. It's great sportsmanship. I'm sorry for those who don't believe in it.

 

[robert_c]

To the OP's question: I like that they wait, but it is unprecedented. In F1 for example, a flat tire will most likely ruin your race. It's part of the "agony of defeat" that makes racing more exciting.

If you want to get rid of waiting, then get rid of team radios. If two top GC riders are riding together and one has a flat, then the other can wait if he wants, but to radio ahead to get someone to soft pedal seems a bit much. The rider behind shouldn't have been behind in the first place.

If you are way ahead and get a flat, the guys way behind don't soft pedal to wait for you to get going.

Bottom line for me is if you want to wait, that's fine, but don't begrudge someone who doesn't.

More to the OP's question, the organizers should neutralize the race on certain occasions. Sabotage with tacks is one, and a train crossing is another, but one guy with a flat or a crash shouldn't warrant a neutralization.

 

[Caruut]

In general, it depends a lot on the situation, I think.

Personally, I think that using team-mates to try and take advantage of it is unsportsmanlike. Going mano-a-mano is nothing like using a strong team to screw over someone else.

On the subject of neutralising - I am in favour of it on a flat stage - if a stage is not meant to have any effect on GC, then I think it's okay to lose that day's GC racing. That stage last year where Garmin slowed it down is an example of this. I am very wary of teams using these "rules" to their advantage. Sky are pretty weak downhill. There is no doubt that the neutralisation yesterday suited them.

On a mountain stage, there is meant to be some competition for the GC. Some riders are meant to lose time. Take, for example, a situation where 2nd punctures and 1st decides to wait. Lower down, 5th is a minute behind 4th on GC, but 4th has lost 2 minutes on the stage. It is grossly unfair on the guy in 5th who has held on for 4th to be allowed back into the fold so easily.

Of course in situations where there is sabotage, I think at least a partial neutralisation is okay. For regular flats on a mountain stage, no way. The anger towards Rolland baffles me - when he attacked, he might not even have known if Cadel had a flat, let alone a flat due to deliberate sabotage. He clearly let up later in the stage, since he lost a 2 minute advantage really quickly.

 

[Caruut]

bottom line is the peloton doesn't care what a bunch of posters on a cycling board tell them they should do, the peloton has a tradition to uphold to, there is a boss, it is a team sport, you put your life and safety in the hands of competitors when riding together, there is still respect in the peloton. more things need to be left to the peloton (a return to old school values), that is what makes cycling great

In many ways, they kind of do. Cycling is supported by sponsors. The attitudes of fans towards the teams (and by extension their sponsors) is hugely important, because that is how the money comes in. The view on a cycling board could be seen as something of a market survey for the commercial interests of teams. I think that the PR guys from some cycling teams may well occasionally read this and/or other boards to gauge how the fans (their customer base) are feeling.

 

[CobbleStoner]

In many ways, they kind of do. Cycling is supported by sponsors. The attitudes of fans towards the teams (and by extension their sponsors) is hugely important, because that is how the money comes in. The view on a cycling board could be seen as something of a market survey for the commercial interests of teams. I think that the PR guys from some cycling teams may well occasionally read this and/or other boards to gauge how the fans (their customer base) are feeling.

that is a big part of the problem, teams that have PR and Marketing guys. the riders really don't want to here those suits telling them what to do in the peloton when it comes to their own personal safety & ethics.
let them race the way they were taught from the previous masters of the peloton.
and young riders like Rolland learned a valuable lesson, albeit the hard way

 

[zigzag wanderer]

-When should they stop/neutralise? For 5 riders? for 10? for 20? where draw the line?

-Who should be in charge?

You're not going to like this answer but I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule.

Take Stage 14 - waiting made no difference as to who was going to win the stage, all the GC contenders were together and there was also enough time to get everybody back together before the finish. The riders also knew the team cars were way behind and anyone who punctured was going to wait far longer than normal.

Stage 6 - breakaway being chased down 25km from the finish in the last flat stage before the mountains. It was a huge crash and obviously if they'd waited the stage victory was gone.

Then there was yesterday - EBH and Eisel telling everyone to slow down to let the break go. They were completely ignored.

It's simply a concencus of riders (and DS's) based on the circumstances at the exact moment and I don't see how it can be any different.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Amusing cartoon in the Newspaper the other day.
http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012/07/16/3460937/JM-pat-17-gallery-20120716204751884665-600x400.jpg

Australians will understand the humour in it.

EDIT: Image link is not working so I have posted a link to the page the cartoon is on.

 

[The Cobra]

I think this whole situation is similar to what we see in football matches, when a player goes down injured do the opposing team do the sportman like thing and kick the ball out se he can get treatment or do they carry on and try and score playing against ten men? In football they made a rule that they always carry on playing and its up to the referee to decide if play should stop or go on. Something similiar should be done in cycling.

I think it's a bit much for the riders to decide when they should sit up and when to carry on in the middle of a fast moving race when they are suffereing and dont have a clear picture of what is going on behind. The rule should be that nobody waits, and make it at the chief commissaires discretion if the race should be temporarily neutralized to allow one of the big favourites back into the group. Then we wouldnt have this endless debate of Contador should have waited for Andy or whatever. Everyone continues regardless unless there is exceptional circumstances like yesterday and the commissaire steps in.

 

[la.margna]

Why do you want rules for everything?

My professional activities involve largely statistics, random events, coding and consequently creating clear rules for everything. So maybe this causes me to look at too many other things though my systematic and clear rules glasses.

On the other hand, wherever it makes sense to have clear rules in place, it helps a lot to avoid polemics, debates or uncertainty.

You're not going to like this answer but I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule.

I fully agree with you. that's what led me to my post to have the "no waiting" rule. That's the easiest and clearest rule and everybody is aware of it and everybody is treated fairly, whether one rider gets hit by a tack (Cadel Vuelta 2009) or 40 riders (Cadel + 39 others Tour de France 2012).

On the spot and the moment, I welcomed (yeah, now I am again going back to this particular recent event, sorry) Brad's decision. However, when I heard several riders (for example van den Broek) complain "nobody waited for me" and started to look at it through my random factor glasses, I had to say, yes it is pretty unfair.

But obviously one cannot wait for everybody. This was also the polemic in the 2010 Tour, the Cancellara stop in the Spa stage caused hefty discussions, if you remember and there was a large group of teams and riders that were not happy at all and disagreed, but nevertheless, they followed the boss. Obviously, in the pavés stage many were complaining that they punctured and nobody waited as Cance did fly away with Hushovd, AS, Cadel and others on his wheel. Of course, in a pavé stage, punctures are part of the game, how many Paris-Roubaix have been strongly influenced by this x factor? Later on, in the Pyrenees, when Sami Sanchez crashed, there was a moment of uncertainty in the field whether they shall wait or not wait and old school guy Carlos Sastre attacked just right after that crash. There again was a lot of polemics and discussion afterwards, but many riders and in particular Sastre communicated clearly that one cannot wait for everybody everytime and that nobody ever waited for him during his career (exactly like Jean-Francois Bernard in L'Equipe).

So to conclude, yes, unfortunately, a clear and easy general rule that will be right for every situation, as you say.

Cycling is a relatively 'free' sport and we really don't need rules for everything.

Let's wait until they (hopefully never) implement Stephen Roche's silly ideas such as prohibiting unzipping jerseys and similar stuff...

bottom line is the peloton doesn't care what a bunch of posters on a cycling board tell them they should do,

Really? I think that's probably pretty clear to everybody on this forum and it's also not the purpose of this forum to change something in cycling or the peloton. (forgive me for my really, not ment to be evil)

the peloton has a tradition to uphold to, there is a boss, it is a team sport, you put your life and safety in the hands of competitors when riding together, there is still respect in the peloton. more things need to be left to the peloton (a return to old school values), that is what makes cycling great

That's true and I fully agree. However, already this thread references numerous historic occasions where it did work or didn't work. There have been situations of pretty impressive sportsmanship and some really ugly events of not only not waiting but even letting domestiques work hard to exploit the situation.

But maybe that's the lack of a clear boss is today's problem. In the older years including 80's, 90's there was a clear boss in the field, the same was (unfortunately) also true during the Lance area. Numerous riders stated during the 80's how Hinault bullied them when they attacked too early or went too fast.

Thanks anyway to all quoted posters here and also a few others who did write their opinion in a substantiated and fair way, sportsmanship!

 

[patrick767]

Of course in situations where there is sabotage, I think at least a partial neutralisation is okay. For regular flats on a mountain stage, no way. The anger towards Rolland baffles me - when he attacked, he might not even have known if Cadel had a flat, let alone a flat due to deliberate sabotage. He clearly let up later in the stage, since he lost a 2 minute advantage really quickly.

I mentioned Rolland and I do think if he knew what was going on, his attack was unsportsmanlike. However, it's possible and I believe likely that he had no idea. He just saw a chance to attack and took it. When his team management let him know what was happening, he backed off. No anger toward Rolland here.

 

[la.margna]

I mentioned Rolland and I do think if he knew what was going on, his attack was unsportsmanlike. However, it's possible and I believe likely that he had no idea. He just saw a chance to attack and took it. When his team management let him know what was happening, he backed off. No anger toward Rolland here.

See my first initial post. According to his first interview, he was aware that Brad asked not to attack and to wait but nevertheless attacked. Only in his later interviews when he realised the anger towards him he changed his version to radio not working and not being aware. But I think he learned his lesson, he's still young.

 

[Apollonius]

In many ways, they kind of do. Cycling is supported by sponsors. The attitudes of fans towards the teams (and by extension their sponsors) is hugely important, because that is how the money comes in. The view on a cycling board could be seen as something of a market survey for the commercial interests of teams. I think that the PR guys from some cycling teams may well occasionally read this and/or other boards to gauge how the fans (their customer base) are feeling.

The view on a cycling board will NEVER be taken as anything like a market survey and nor should it.
The sponsors of bike races aren't aiming to capture to hardcore cycling fans - on the contrary, they are aiming to snare the casual fans. Casual fans, those with a bit of a passing interest make up the huge numbers whom watch Le Tour, it's those masses the cycling sponsors want to appeal to.

Those on forums like this are but a very vocal few.