Tdf Stage 3 *Spoiler*

Pross

emadden wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Don't think he came down, looked like he had to stop though.

From all the replays Ive seen, "wiggo" didnt "have to" stop... he was quite far back and well able to avoid the small pile-up, but it seemed like he acted opportunistically. In such case that, IMO is abusing the 3km rule.

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

calvjones

The Mad Rapper wrote:

These stages have been insane though for the number of riders wanting to be at the front. I know the first week is always jittery, but it's starting to take the p*ss now. In a post-race interview with Cav yesterday he said there were climbers and GC riders in the front at the sprint! People need to settle down IMHO. Too many stupid mistakes. Too many silly crashes.

Yeah, 'cos sprinters never crash when its only them at the front.

Rundfahrt

Islwyn wrote:

Credit to EBH for getting 2nd, worked hard all day.

On the commentary Carlton mentioned he'd been tweeted how it was 'unfair' as Sagan got towed a fair amount throughout the day, that's BS as every rider gets their turn - just so happened Sagan's was televised a lot.

Most riders draft for twenty or thirty seconds and then move on to the next car. Sagan spent over a minute on the Katusha car alone.

smithy21

Pross wrote:

emadden wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Don't think he came down, looked like he had to stop though.

From all the replays Ive seen, "wiggo" didnt "have to" stop... he was quite far back and well able to avoid the small pile-up, but it seemed like he acted opportunistically. In such case that, IMO is abusing the 3km rule.

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

This. I dont see the alternative. Commissaires judging whether people needed to stop or not in a crash situation?

Turfle

Don't think it was particularly suspicious. It was an uphill sprint, and he's excellent at uphill sprints. That EBH got 2nd, and uphill sprints aren't really his thing, shows the field isn't overly strong for these finishes. He's not riding away from 2011 Gilbert here.

emadden

disgruntledgoat wrote:

emadden wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Don't think he came down, looked like he had to stop though.

From all the replays Ive seen, "wiggo" didnt "have to" stop... he was quite far back and well able to avoid the small pile-up, but it seemed like he acted opportunistically. In such case that, IMO is abusing the 3km rule.

If a crash goes down in front of you, you lose contact as a result and you know you aren't going to lose time, then why kill yourself not getting back on?

The thing is he wouldnt have lost contact because of the crash - yes there wouldve been a gap where the fallen riders were, but that should be tough luck for being in the wrong place.

The rule can be unjust if it is applied in a blanket finish on finishes like this - as we saw last year. Take the example of a rider who was 3 or 4 seconds behind the lead group when the crash happened. Those in the group with the crash all get the same time, and even though 3 or 4 seconds makes it across because of the crash, he still loses 4 seconds on the day.

afx237vi

Rundfahrt wrote:

Islwyn wrote:

Credit to EBH for getting 2nd, worked hard all day.

On the commentary Carlton mentioned he'd been tweeted how it was 'unfair' as Sagan got towed a fair amount throughout the day, that's BS as every rider gets their turn - just so happened Sagan's was televised a lot.

Most riders draft for twenty or thirty seconds and then move on to the next car. Sagan spent over a minute on the Katusha car alone.

Did he have his jersey zipped up, though?

ddraver

Rundfahrt wrote:

Islwyn wrote:

Credit to EBH for getting 2nd, worked hard all day.

On the commentary Carlton mentioned he'd been tweeted how it was 'unfair' as Sagan got towed a fair amount throughout the day, that's BS as every rider gets their turn - just so happened Sagan's was televised a lot.

Most riders draft for twenty or thirty seconds and then move on to the next car. Sagan spent over a minute on the Katusha car alone.

What's the difference between being towed by the Katusha car for one minute or being towed for 30secs by the Katusha car, and then another 30 secs by the e.g. Europcar Car then Rundy?

emadden

Pross wrote:

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

The point Im trying to make is that the 3km rule can be applied unfairly. If the crash had happened at 4km Wiggins would've lost a pile of time because he was riding in a very bad position. His time loss would have been indirectly caused by he crash, but something that could have been avoided. IMO, the 3km should really only apply to matters beyond a riders control.

TMR

calvjones wrote:

Yeah, 'cos sprinters never crash when its only them at the front.

I was making a general observation - not starting a p*ssing match about who causes the most crashes :roll:

emadden

smithy21 wrote:

This. I dont see the alternative. Commissaires judging whether people needed to stop or not in a crash situation?

They dont have to in each and every case, but if there is a clear case of it being abused for example, "oh look, theres a crash, I should stop and fix my jersey", then I think the Commissaire should have a discretion to act. The riders should always be seeking to cross the line in shortest amount of time possible.... just my opinion.

DeadCalm

emadden wrote:

Pross wrote:

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

The point Im trying to make is that the 3km rule can be applied unfairly. If the crash had happened at 4km Wiggins would've lost a pile of time because he was riding in a very bad position. His time loss would have been indirectly caused by he crash, but something that could have been avoided. IMO, the 3km should really only apply to matters beyond a riders control.

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Turfle

Menchov given his time back. Froome too.

bigmat

emadden wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

emadden wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Don't think he came down, looked like he had to stop though.

From all the replays Ive seen, "wiggo" didnt "have to" stop... he was quite far back and well able to avoid the small pile-up, but it seemed like he acted opportunistically. In such case that, IMO is abusing the 3km rule.

If a crash goes down in front of you, you lose contact as a result and you know you aren't going to lose time, then why kill yourself not getting back on?

The thing is he wouldnt have lost contact because of the crash - yes there wouldve been a gap where the fallen riders were, but that should be tough luck for being in the wrong place.

The rule can be unjust if it is applied in a blanket finish on finishes like this - as we saw last year. Take the example of a rider who was 3 or 4 seconds behind the lead group when the crash happened. Those in the group with the crash all get the same time, and even though 3 or 4 seconds makes it across because of the crash, he still loses 4 seconds on the day.

Isn't the whole point of the rule to discourage every rider in the peloton trying to get to the front at the end of the stage? There are almost 200 riders, something has to be done to calm things down a bit and let the guys actually going for the win have room to do so safely. Saying that anybody not in the front 50 only has themselves to blame for losing time behind a crash just encourages the kind of riding that would cause mayhem and far more crashes, which nobody in their right mind wants to see.

ddraver

emadden wrote:

Pross wrote:

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

The point Im trying to make is that the 3km rule can be applied unfairly. If the crash had happened at 4km Wiggins would've lost a pile of time because he was riding in a very bad position. His time loss would have been indirectly caused by he crash, but something that could have been avoided. IMO, the 3km should really only apply to matters beyond a riders control.

I guess that it is a blance between when people will "wait" (lots of discussion about that today) vs when everyone will continue hell for leather for the stage victory. There is a bit by Michael Barry In Rouler about this. What do you do? Extend it to 5km? 10km? or abandon it completely and force everyone to be right at the front in case of a crash - ironically thereby causing even more carnage.

Personally I think that allowing GC and stage victory guys to fight it out untill about 3km whereupon the GC guys can melt away and let the sprinters play is a good idea - The trouble is it does nt work on rarer* stages like today where a GC guy might try and knick a few seconds...

*Although it seems Christophe Prudhomme is a fan, as am I...

TheBigBean

emadden wrote:

Pross wrote:

The 3km rule would have applied even if he didn't stop as he would have lost the time due to the gap the crash created so I don't see how he was abusing the rule :roll:

The point Im trying to make is that the 3km rule can be applied unfairly. If the crash had happened at 4km Wiggins would've lost a pile of time because he was riding in a very bad position. His time loss would have been indirectly caused by he crash, but something that could have been avoided. IMO, the 3km should really only apply to matters beyond a riders control.

The most unfair situation is if you puncture with 3.1km to go, then everyone else crashes with 2.9km to go in such a way that you end up losing mins walking through the wreckage. Everyone else then gets one time, and you get several mins delay.

That, in essence, happened to Contador last year, or rather it didn't happen to Contador, but would have happened if he had had a licence to ride.

emadden

DeadCalm wrote:

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Nope, let me explain: (a) Wiggins stopped (b) he didnt need to stop - in light of all the replays Ive seen, (c) He stopped knowing that he would get the 3km rule protection.

The origins of the 3km rule is of the course the 1km rule - which was introduced because so much can happen in the last kilometer of a stage that isn’t a measure of a rider’s physical ability or skill, but rather the luck of the rider. In recent years it was extended to 3km. In light of the underlying purpose for this rule, a rider stopping opportunistically is clearly not within the spirit of the rule.

The worst example of the injustices of the rule is still last years Tour - stage 2 I think.

disgruntledgoat

emadden wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Nope, let me explain: (a) Wiggins stopped (b) he didnt need to stop - in light of all the replays Ive seen, (c) He stopped knowing that he would get the 3km rule protection.

The origins of the 3km rule is of the course the 1km rule - which was introduced because so much can happen in the last kilometer of a stage that isn’t a measure of a rider’s physical ability or skill, but rather the luck of the rider. In recent years it was extended to 3km. In light of the underlying purpose for this rule, a rider stopping opportunistically is clearly not within the spirit of the rule.

The worst example of the injustices of the rule is still last years Tour - stage 2 I think.

I never understood the extension to 3km, but if the rule is there it's naive to expect professional riders not to use it to their advantage.

RichN95.

emadden wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Nope, let me explain: (a) Wiggins stopped (b) he didnt need to stop - in light of all the replays Ive seen, (c) He stopped knowing that he would get the 3km rule protection.

The origins of the 3km rule is of the course the 1km rule - which was introduced because so much can happen in the last kilometer of a stage that isn’t a measure of a rider’s physical ability or skill, but rather the luck of the rider. In recent years it was extended to 3km. In light of the underlying purpose for this rule, a rider stopping opportunistically is clearly not within the spirit of the rule.

The worst example of the injustices of the rule is still last years Tour - stage 2 I think.

Part of the reason for having rule is so if there is a crash nobody panics too much and just keep calm and safe so there's no unnecessary incidents. It's a simple unambiguous rule and everyone knows where they stand. Introduce opinions and subjectivity into the equation and you cause uncertainty and chaos. And more injustice.

Pross

emadden wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Nope, let me explain: (a) Wiggins stopped (b) he didnt need to stop - in light of all the replays Ive seen, (c) He stopped knowing that he would get the 3km rule protection.

The origins of the 3km rule is of the course the 1km rule - which was introduced because so much can happen in the last kilometer of a stage that isn’t a measure of a rider’s physical ability or skill, but rather the luck of the rider. In recent years it was extended to 3km. In light of the underlying purpose for this rule, a rider stopping opportunistically is clearly not within the spirit of the rule.

The worst example of the injustices of the rule is still last years Tour - stage 2 I think.

But what was the point of him not stopping? He wasn't going to win the stage but equally without the crash he wouldn't have lost any time. How is that abusing the rule in any way? Even the riders not affected directly by the crash would have struggled to get their momentum back on a hill like that having slowed to avoid the carnage and it's not only Wiggins that 'benefitted' so why single him out?

bigmat

disgruntledgoat wrote:

emadden wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Huh? Wiggins shouldn't benefit because he should have been ahead of the crash, is that what you're saying??

Nope, let me explain: (a) Wiggins stopped (b) he didnt need to stop - in light of all the replays Ive seen, (c) He stopped knowing that he would get the 3km rule protection.

The origins of the 3km rule is of the course the 1km rule - which was introduced because so much can happen in the last kilometer of a stage that isn’t a measure of a rider’s physical ability or skill, but rather the luck of the rider. In recent years it was extended to 3km. In light of the underlying purpose for this rule, a rider stopping opportunistically is clearly not within the spirit of the rule.

The worst example of the injustices of the rule is still last years Tour - stage 2 I think.

I never understood the extension to 3km, but if the rule is there it's naive to expect professional riders not to use it to their advantage.

Didn't he stop within the last km anyway?

TheBigBean

The main solution would be to remove the 3km rule for uphill finishes, but then they do do this. Today wasn't much of a hill so the rule applied.

iainf72

Siutsou has fractured his tibia and is out

Squaggles

Perhaps I've missed something but why is it that Sagan winning and his celebrations seems to annoy a few people ? Is he generally disliked for some reason ? Is it because making it look easy is disrespectful to his fellow riders ?

frenchfighter

Cocky

Turfle

Squaggles wrote:

Perhaps I've missed something but why is it that Sagan winning and his celebrations seems to annoy a few people ? Is he generally disliked for some reason ? Is it because making it look easy is disrespectful to his fellow riders ?

I think it stems from his win on stage 1, where some thought it was a bit out of order to do such a cocky celebration after hitching a ride to the line.

To be fair, I haven't seen any cyclists say anything. Without exception they were complimentary on twitter.

I think he's just having fun. Harmless.

iainf72

Robbie Hunter sez it's rubbing other riders faces in it with that kind of celebration. Aren't all celebrations rubbing everyone's faces in it?

Turfle

Well I think there is a line, but I don't think Sagan has crossed it. As long as he's not aiming his celebrations at riders then I've no problem with however he celebrates.

knedlicky

TheBigBean wrote:

The main solution would be to remove the 3km rule for uphill finishes

I don't think the 3 km rule applies to mountain finishes, i.e. categorised climbs. Today's finish was uphill but not a categorised climb.

greasedscotsman

greasedscotsman wrote:

Think the final climb up to the finish would suit Sagan perfectly!

There you go, what did I say?

Just got back from today's stage. Watched from a great spot, about 300m to go, so saw the Wiggy/Menchov crash. So many Brits out today! Now just gotta work out what happened during the rest of the stage...