Giro Stage 10 - spoilers
Comments
-
adr82 wrote:
In other words, "Rules are rules, except when they aren't"...sjmclean wrote:The best thing to come out of this is Tinkovsaxo's stupidity:
“Rules are rules, yes, but it’s how you implement the rules some days,” De Jongh
Or in De Jongh's case when they seem not to apply to him.Correlation is not causation.0 -
-
Yep, you re right rich. He can't really say anything else and I suppose he has to say something (though I think staying quiet might have been a good option).
It's such a clear, cut and dried, obviously awful decision that I suppose there is no real advantage/disadvantage to putting out a nonsense statemtent either way thoWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Lol. I suppose the most obvious answer might be the best one. Ie/. he is just giving his opinion. But by all means make excuses for him not saying what he really thinks.Contador is the Greatest0
-
I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
ddraver wrote:He's givg the opinion he has to give...doesn't make it correct. In this case it's very obviously wrong
You can believe this if you want. Or you can believe he is giving his own opinion. Typically I tend to think the latter is more likely.Contador is the Greatest0 -
It may very well be his opinion. But if it wasn't there's no way he'd undermine the race officials by saying it.frenchfighter wrote:Lol. I suppose the most obvious answer might be the best one. Ie/. he is just giving his opinion. But by all means make excuses for him not saying what he really thinks.Twitter: @RichN950 -
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.0 -
ddraver wrote:Cookson is a company man when he needs to be eh....
Brian is a UCI commissaire so is well aware of the rules.
In some instances discretion is given - pacing behind cars, sticky bottle etc but when these might have an impact on the outcome of the race then the rules are stuck to. Is it really that hard to understand or are those calling for rigid interpretation of every rule being blinded by their adoration of Porte and Sky? In which case I suggest going back to the inception of the team and see which rules they broke since then and rest assured that they have been given the benefit of the doubt more than they have been penalised.0 -
So where is the line between an action having an impact and an action not having an impact? There has to be consistency with equal action being penalised equally, otherwise the rulebook loses meaning. If Clarke or Porte had seen the same action go unpunished because there is no impact to the race (and they probably have) then they are entitled to think they can do the same.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:In some instances discretion is given - pacing behind cars, sticky bottle etc but when these might have an impact on the outcome of the race then the rules are stuck to.Twitter: @RichN950 -
It is a rule, but when and how you implement a rule is the true measure of fairness.
Not taking pace, or draughting, from team cars is also a rule. How often is a rider who has had a crash or had a mechanical penalised for this common infringement???????0 -
adr82 wrote:
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.
What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
ddraver wrote:With respect TWH there are 27 pages of us explaining that to Frenchie. Do we need to do it again?
TBH I've been following the threads and haven't seen any talk of why the rule exists (other than to cover this situation). A lot of complaining about the penalty (which may indeed to be too harsh), the impact on the race, arguments about nationality and Frenchie being....“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The chances are that nobody really knows why it's there. It's probably be around for ages without anyone really revisiting it. The people who introduced it are probably dead.TailWindHome wrote:ddraver wrote:With respect TWH there are 27 pages of us explaining that to Frenchie. Do we need to do it again?
TBH I've been following the threads and haven't seen any talk of why the rule exists (other than to cover this situation). A lot of complaining about the penalty (which may indeed to be too harsh), the impact on the race, arguments about nationality and Frenchie being....Twitter: @RichN950 -
TWH - the best Ive heard is that it is part of a set of rules to stop teams blatantly colluding.
i.e. all the spanish teams working for a spanish win, italians for an italian win etc. which was a large part of cycling history of old (Roche in the Giro for example)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
TailWindHome wrote:adr82 wrote:
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.
What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?
Personally, I think the point is to prevent teams, such as wealthy ones, being larger than 9 men. The rule is clear and there is no wriggle room for another decision as there is in some of the rules e.g. rule 2.3.030 states "In case of a fall, the implementation of this disposal is left to commissaire’s discretion" - that relates to mechanics hanging out of windows.0 -
Who knows. Maybe if the rule were a little clearer we would know. Someone suggested a situation on an MTF where say for example Aru is up the road with another Italian from a different team, punctures, and gets a wheel from him. Unlike this incident, that would be a clear case of gaining an advantage due to outside assistance.TailWindHome wrote:adr82 wrote:
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.
What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?
What is clear is that it was not intended to punish a GC contender who understandably took the first available wheel offered to him in the circumstances and still lost almost a minute. It's not even like they made the decision on the spot and thought "Oh we'd better penalise him just in case this gives him an advantage somehow", they found out about it after the finish and only then decided it was somehow worthy of a further 2 minutes on top of what he'd already lost. It makes zero sense.0 -
adr82 wrote:they found out about it after the finish.
From the race organisers themselves who plastered it all over twitter claiming it was a great act of sportsmanship and what makes cycling so great. That is what I find so hilarious.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Only 298 pages to reach Lance. We can do this!0
-
ThomThom wrote:Only 298 pages to reach Lance. We can do this!
We'll need some new gifs though.
Out of interest, what is the record number of thread pages for an otherwise unassuming GT flat stage?Correlation is not causation.0 -
isn`t not taking your helmet off another rule ?frenchfighter wrote:“This is not a new rule it’s been in the books for many decade I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to expect the riders to know the rules. The commissaires took the decision and the right decision in my opinion and in any case I don't think it would be correct for me to intervene,” said Cookson.
“I think it could be said that maybe the pen was on the high side. It’s not a new rule and I don’t’ think it’s unreasonable to expect the teams to understand those rules.”0 -
tim000 wrote:isn`t not taking your helmet off another rule ?
I don't think so, the rule is that a helmet should be worn. It doesn't go into detail about how a helmet change should be performed.0 -
The helmet thing is irrelevant - Porte gained an advantage by breaking a rule - is there really any doubt that a penalty has to be applied for that. Yes the penalty is disproportionate in this case but do the commissaires have the powers to vary that as it sounds like it is a set penalty for the first offence. As has already been pointed out Froome dodged a bullet when he bonked in the Tour and took an illegal feed when he had been ordered not to - that was probably worth a bigger penalty than he received - nobody made a fuss about that being a case of pro Sky commissaires discriminating against their opponents - some you win some you lose.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
adr82 wrote:
Who knows. Maybe if the rule were a little clearer we would know. Someone suggested a situation on an MTF where say for example Aru is up the road with another Italian from a different team, punctures, and gets a wheel from him. Unlike this incident, that would be a clear case of gaining an advantage due to outside assistance.TailWindHome wrote:adr82 wrote:
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.
What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?
I've made my opinions clear on the idiocy of applying the rule, but that's more or less exactly the same situation.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
I've seen a lot of people saying 'rules are rules' etc, but...
...I've haven't seen one single person who complained about the incident as being unfair before they knew about the rule. The reaction to Clarke was entirely positive.
Dogmatic adherance to the rules doesn't guarantee justice.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Only if you ignore everything other than the wheel change... Porte found himself on the side of the road a few k from the end of a flat stage with very little chance of getting back whatever happened (another reason why this was all so stupid). The hypothetical MTF situation would involve someone ahead of the main field potentially gaining time by not having to wait for a wheel from a legal source. The position within the race where the incident takes place has to be taken into account.The_Boy wrote:adr82 wrote:
Who knows. Maybe if the rule were a little clearer we would know. Someone suggested a situation on an MTF where say for example Aru is up the road with another Italian from a different team, punctures, and gets a wheel from him. Unlike this incident, that would be a clear case of gaining an advantage due to outside assistance.TailWindHome wrote:adr82 wrote:
... other than the fact that by the time they did apply it, the stage was over and it was clear that he'd lost a big chunk of time despite technically breaking a rule intended for totally different situations. They applied the penalty without any compelling reason, that's the reason there's a discussion!TailWindHome wrote:I don't know why this even a discussion.
The rule is there. The penalty is clear. It was applied. There was no compelling reason not to apply it.
What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?
I've made my opinions clear on the idiocy of applying the rule, but that's more or less exactly the same situation.
As another illustration of that, you could consider the widespread acceptance of the various ways of using cars to catch back on after a mechanical etc (unless it becomes really blatant), while it's much less accepted for someone at the front of the race to start trying to draft motorbikes to give themselves an advantage.0
