Giro Stage 10 - spoilers

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

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.

^This. Right now I'm off to read some Arendt.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

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.

You posted the picture on page 6 shortly after Porte's tweet. Before that everyone assumed he had just received a Sky wheel. 3 posts later Salsiccia1 questioned the morality of it. Near the start of page 7 it was pointed out that it was a breach of a rule. So at least one person pointed it out in the miniscule window of time available to meet your criteria.

Dogmatic adherence to the rules doesn't guarantee justice, but it is probably the best system going.

ddraver

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

Its fully relevant DeV because Bertie should stop at the side of the road, make his adjustments and then chase back on. Therefore by getting away with it, nonsense as it is, he gains an advantage.

Sky were punished by both a fine and a time penalty for the illegal feed last year.

They have actually lost out in both

But actually the main issue is that the rules are clearly applied with discretion daily, so saying that there is no choice but to penalise Porte and Clarke is clearly nonsense. For one I'm fed up of being treated like an idiot by the Giro Race organisation

frenchfighter

Haha you guys are still complaining! Rich I've never seen you so upset! Who would have known you were a Porte fanboi!

Anyway, something else for you lot to be upset about - Gerrans is out the race.

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

Its fully relevant DeV because Bertie should stop at the side of the road, make his adjustments and then chase back on. Therefore by getting away with it, nonsense as it is, he gains an advantage.

Sky were punished by both a fine and a time penalty for the illegal feed last year.

They have actually lost out in both

But actually the main issue is that the rules are clearly applied with discretion daily, so saying that there is no choice but to penalise Porte and Clarke is clearly nonsense. For one I'm fed up of being treated like an idiot by the Giro Race organisation

I suspect you haven't read 1.3.031 of the rules.

1. Wearing a rigid safety helmet shall be mandatory during competitions and training sessions in the following disciplines: track, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, trials and BMX, para-cycling, as well as during cycling for all events.
2. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety helmet shall be worn. During training on the road, the wearing of a rigid safety helmet is recommended. However, riders must always comply with the legal provisions in this regard.

It doesn't allow for any changing of bike helmets stationary or not, hence the whole talk is largely irrelevant. You could argue that Contador's approach breached the "security regulations" in item 3, but this term is not defined and seems to mean the way the strap is adjusted. So, the rules simply do not stipulate the correct procedure to change a helmet, and therefore it is hard to insist on penalty for an offense that doesn't exist.

Note that changing a helmet stationary on the side of the road with helpers and your team mechanic would still mean that you are, at some point, not wearing a helmet in competition, and thus guilty as charged by Twitter.

Porte was caught breaking a clear rule. It might be harsh, but he has accepted it.

ddraver

Well then a rider changing or adjusting a helmet is also breaking a clear rule and should also accept their Disqualification with good grace. Harsh, but thems the rules

Or we could accept that the laws in any sport are always applied with descression and therefore criticise the race jury for not doing so in this case

It really is simple and obvious that in this case the decision was wrong.

TheBigBean

ddraver - I hope you're never a juror!

ddraver

The situations are clearly very different. That's no more than reductio ad absurdum and thus a fallacy.

Plus, it's the people saying rules are rukes that want it two ways. I am very clear that the rules are always applied with discretion so why not here. I am, weirdly I admit, being the most consistent.

above_the_cows

Except as a juror it isn't black and white either. You are guided into how to interpret the evidence given by the judge. Then if a guilty verdict is returned the judge is able to use their discretion within sentencing guidelines in deciding the sentence. That's the thing, the world isn't black and white and the law reflects that.

Anyway why am I discussing this still, I'm having a discussion on twitter with Flecha about his hair. Laters.

frenchfighter

Goodness me. The BigBean is talking a lot of sense. You seem to be willfully trying to obfuscate the matter. Stop pining and face the facts as it isn't going to get the penalty reversed.

ddraver

Bore off Frenchie, you have failed

frenchfighter

OnYourRight wrote:

This Velonews article by Andrew Hood takes a pretty balanced view, I find. You’ll feel better after reading it.

It is a decent piece. I like how he mentions about the wheels being identical - this was my first thought when I saw the photo. I must laugh at all the Americans et al talking about what a lovely gesture this was and how cycling needs a boost yada yada yada. Unfortunately it doesn't ring true though.

First thing I think of is this. Albeit his teammate, Froome did not need to help Geraint like that. He did it because he has class in many ways and a heart.



Second thing I think of is Contador towing Tiralongo to his first ever victory. L'Ape di Avola would have lost the stage to Contador but Contador scarificed some seconds he could gain on GC to enable his former teammate to take the win.



It then led to a beautiful display in another race:


Here is one of an opposite nature. Contador was about to receive a bottle because he is well liked yet the American came through and took it first.



Anyway, here is another opinion piece:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opi ... -penalised

The_Boy

adr82 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

adr82 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

adr82 wrote:

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.

... 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!

What situation do you think the rule is intended to cover other than this one?

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.

I've made my opinions clear on the idiocy of applying the rule, but that's more or less exactly the same situation.

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.

Nope. In both situations time is being lost due to a puncture. In both situations this loss of time is mitigated by taking a wheel from a rider on another team. Either both are subject to a penalty, or neither. I say neither fwiw.

adr82

The_Boy wrote:

adr82 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

I've made my opinions clear on the idiocy of applying the rule, but that's more or less exactly the same situation.

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.

Nope. In both situations time is being lost due to a puncture. In both situations this loss of time is mitigated by taking a wheel from a rider on another team. Either both are subject to a penalty, or neither. I say neither fwiw.

I'd say neither as well if it really had to be one or the other, although the obvious solution is to use some common sense rather than start blindly throwing 2' penalties around. That still doesn't change the fact there's a difference involved in bending rules at the sharp end of a race compared to anywhere else. In Porte's case it was abundantly clear by the time the jury got around to considering it that any time he had theoretically saved was irrelevant given the eventual loss, but that wouldn't always be true depending on the time and place a violation of this rule took place. Wouldn't have to be a wheel change either given all it says is "Non-regulation assistance"...

ddraver

Frenchie seems to have misposted Robert Millar's view - http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert ... -applauded - I'm sure it was a just a mistake.

dolan_driver

frenchfighter wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

Here is one of an opposite nature. Contador was about to receive a bottle because he is well liked yet the American came through and took it first.

Is this incident reported anywhere else on the net?

DD.

frenchfighter

Yes. I'm not making it up :roll:

It is pretty small compared to what Armstrong and Bruyneel did to Contador in that 2009 Tour. It is pretty amazing. For the Anncey TT, Contador had to buy his own wheels and his brother had to pick him up from the hotel and rush him to the start as his team 'forgot' to collect him.

But my man is an absolute legend, certified amazing rider and hard as any one mentally. So he just made the ugly American look like a total douche bag.

Read here:
http://sports.gunaxin.com/lance-armstro ... uche/25144
and here:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/ ... nce_180322

excerpt:
Ian Gutierrez, a Spanish rider from Caisse d’Epargne, tried to give Contador his water bottle after he was caught following an early day breakaway. Gutierrez stated that he, “offered him (Contador) my bottle because I saw that he didn’t have any water and I am his friend.” But Armstrong intercepted the attempted pass. To add insult to injury, after Contador locked in the victory in the Tour at the stage’s end, Armstrong didn’t bother to attend the celebratory team dinner that night.

Crozza

frenchfighter wrote:

excerpt:
Ian Gutierrez, a Spanish rider from Caisse d’Epargne, tried to give Contador his water bottle after he was caught following an early day breakaway. Gutierrez stated that he, “offered him (Contador) my bottle because I saw that he didn’t have any water and I am his friend.” But Armstrong intercepted the attempted pass. To add insult to injury, after Contador locked in the victory in the Tour at the stage’s end, Armstrong didn’t bother to attend the celebratory team dinner that night.

ha, Lance really was a douche

but cycling, like all sport, needs villains, just like it needs gross injustices. life's rich tapestry etc etc

dolan_driver

Crozza wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

excerpt:
Ian Gutierrez, a Spanish rider from Caisse d’Epargne, tried to give Contador his water bottle after he was caught following an early day breakaway. Gutierrez stated that he, “offered him (Contador) my bottle because I saw that he didn’t have any water and I am his friend.” But Armstrong intercepted the attempted pass. To add insult to injury, after Contador locked in the victory in the Tour at the stage’s end, Armstrong didn’t bother to attend the celebratory team dinner that night.

ha, Lance really was a douche

Indeed, he was a cheeky bugger.

DD.

frenchfighter

I like this.

@SimoClarke 3h3 hours ago
Went past @richie_porte again today when he needed a spare bike from his crash and thought if only I could have offered him mine...

taon24

I feel for Porte, I don't think there was any other intent other than to fix an unlucky situation as quickly as possible and return to competing.

However the time loss in a puncture will clearly make a difference to the competition. This is where GC competitors need their teams. By taking a wheel from another team Porte has added a rider to his team - the riders doing the chasing + the rider giving him a wheel.

It becomes murky in terms of what makes a difference to competition, and to an extent that is where the race jury come in. Does Gianni Meersman receiving a wheel make a difference to the competition if he wasn't going to place in the top 20? Rightly not enough to cause a fuss by penalising him (but equally any penalty for someone an hour behind is pretty irrelevant).

Equally difficult is the issue of what is legitimate tactics and what isn't? I would hope paying another teams rider would be against the rules, but haven't checked, and would understand why people do it (extra riders for rich teams, extra cash for the poorer teams). I would accept 'favours' as being acceptable. Your team can consider it's tactics of when to ride/not ride in the light of benefit for another team. You might agree to give another rider from another team the stage win, in exchange for help for the overall classification.

The race jury would hopefully be able to make a balanced decision as to when this is legitimate tactics, and when it is selling results.

In this case the offer of help from another team has come in the form of physical assistance and has probably made a difference to his (Porte's) time loss, and therefore potentially to the Giro overall, hence a penalty has to be applied to discourage future rule breaking. 2 minutes seems to be the penalty because it is written in the rules. If a different time penalty was applied would questions then be asked as to why Porte was special?

ddraver

so youre only problem is that Clarke pushed him off as opposed to the Sky rider standing net to him?

Ok, Is Clarke known for a particularly hard push?

taon24

No, the advantage was gaining a sky rider for the chase, because all the sky riders had their front wheels.

ddraver

Well that's actually the best point made in favour in 29 pages so fair play. However given that they had a car to follow I dont think it made enough difference to warrant a penalty. Plus to be honest I'm not sure that gaining/losing an advantage is all that relevant given that there are so many clear cut examples where advantage is gained but punishment is never applied

taon24

I think the problems for Porte are:
An advantage was probably gained, by having more sky riders chasing and the wheel change happening before the cars got to him.
Porte is clearly important enough to GC for the advantage to possibly make a difference to the overall.
The organisers want teams to be a single group of 9 riders, not 9 riders, plus everyone of your nationality. If Clarke would have stopped for any/all of the GC riders puncturing then the penalty was definitely unfair.
(I'd be interested to see opinions what would have been said had an Astana / Tinkoff rider from non-english speaking country who had stopped)

I think the problems for the Giro are:
I don't think this was a pre-arranged deal where OGE would act as additional help to Porte. It was an act of genuine sportsmanship/friendship, which should be applauded.
Potentially Porte could lose the overall by 1 minute and then everyone say he'd have won, but for an 'unfair' penalty.
While stopping the sharing of wheels is easy to police, the sharing of favours is almost impossible. If Clarke had stopped and acted as an additional man in the chase would that be cheating?
Incidents like this are frequently ignored, because they usually make little definite / visible difference, and it looks petty to pull Porte up in this incident.

bobmcstuff

Hear, hear.

adr82

taon24 wrote:

I think the problems for Porte are:
An advantage was probably gained, by having more sky riders chasing and the wheel change happening before the cars got to him.
Porte is clearly important enough to GC for the advantage to possibly make a difference to the overall.
The organisers want teams to be a single group of 9 riders, not 9 riders, plus everyone of your nationality. If Clarke would have stopped for any/all of the GC riders puncturing then the penalty was definitely unfair.

The simple fact is that regardless of who he got a wheel from and however many riders he had, he still lost 47s! If the outside assistance made any difference (arguable), at best the outcome was a reduced disadvantage, not an advantage. It's not like Porte got dropped and was then towed back by every Aussie in the peloton, he just punctured at a very bad time when on any other day he would have finished in the bunch. He gained nothing over his rivals. The most he could ever have done was finish with them and that was always unlikely as soon as he punctured so close to a flat finish.

taon24 wrote:

(I'd be interested to see opinions what would have been said had an Astana / Tinkoff rider from non-english speaking country who had stopped)

Why would you think it'd make a difference? If this same thing had happened with Aru+Italian rider or Contador+Spanish rider or Uran+Colombian rider and they lost as much time as Porte did, I would have exactly the same opinion. It's just kicking someone when they're already down and isn't good for the race.

taon24

Punctures are unlucky, yes.
He lost time because of an unfortunate puncture, yes.
Both of these are part of the race.
However the time loss and therefore the effects of the puncture was possibly, maybe, reduced slightly by having an extra sky rider to chase.
A reduced disadvantage is an 'advantage' from Porte's perspective. I think that there is a good argument for applying a penalty based on something which may give you an advantage, if it may make a significant difference to the result.

There have been problems in the past in Grand Tours with riders helping others of the same nationality on different teams. The race jury wants teams to be simply divisible, not a complex mix of trade and national teams.
Clarke helped out another Australian, and wouldn't clearly have helped Contador or Aru, which is part of what the officials want to prevent.

adr82

taon24 wrote:

Punctures are unlucky, yes.
He lost time because of an unfortunate puncture, yes.
Both of these are part of the race.
However the time loss and therefore the effects of the puncture was possibly, maybe, reduced slightly by having an extra sky rider to chase.
A reduced disadvantage is an 'advantage' from Porte's perspective. I think that there is a good argument for applying a penalty based on something which may give you an advantage, if it may make a significant difference to the result.

"Possibly, maybe, reduced slightly"... are you serious? There's no way that "possibly, maybe, reduced slightly" plus actually losing 47 seconds is worth an additional 2 minute penalty. That's the problem with this whole thing, the failure to apply any common sense to it.

And no, it's not any kind of advantage for Porte. He lost a lot of time on a stage where 99 times in 100 he would have finished in the bunch. There is no way you can spin it into being an advantage. He could have counted himself lucky it wasn't even more of a gap (before the jury got involved anyway), but it was still hardly ideal for his GC chances.

Finally, the race jury knew all of this by the time they got around to considering their verdict. They knew that despite the best efforts of his team, he had still lost significant time. They knew it didn't make a "significant difference" to the result - if you puncture a few k from the finish of a flat stage you're almost inevitably going to lose time however many friends help you out, and that's exactly what happened. This wasn't a long chase where an extra teammate could have made a real difference. Effectively all they did was penalise him for getting a puncture at the wrong time.

taon24 wrote:

There have been problems in the past in Grand Tours with riders helping others of the same nationality on different teams. The race jury wants teams to be simply divisible, not a complex mix of trade and national teams.
Clarke helped out another Australian, and wouldn't clearly have helped Contador or Aru, which is part of what the officials want to prevent.

Well maybe they should rethink having national teams in the WCs then, to avoid giving that attitude any encouragement? But the rule in question here says absolutely nothing about nationality and so it's not really relevant to the discussion. It could just as easily have been a friend from a different country giving him a wheel.

tailwindhome

Clarke's actions, however well intentioned, interfered with the fair running of the race.
That I believe is why the rule exists and why the penalty is harsh.