TdF 2016 Stage 12 *Contains spoilers*

gsk82

RonB wrote:

Which is +05'05" for Mollema, Froome and Porte and +05'24" for Quintana etc.

correct. quintana didn't get the same time as mollema. i don't see what they're moaning about

rick_chasey

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

RonB

Pedant alert ... don't forget Yates.

rick_chasey

Well yeah, Yates didn't hit the ground, Mollema did, and he gets the gap on the road to Mollema but Froome and Porte don't.

gsk82

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

Mollema was the only one able to carry on unhindered after the crash. They can't give him an arbitrary 20 second bonus, but they can and have adapted a rule that comes in to play in a similar situation ie the 3km rule. If it didn't happen Froome, Porte and Mollema would all be a further 20 seconds or so better off, not just Mollema.

rick_chasey

He was still on the ground, because of the moto right?

They took the time on the road between Yates & Mollema, when Mollema was put on the ground by the moto and not Yates.

above_the_cows

It's all immaterial now anyway. I get why Bauke is aggrieved and think that if at all possible they should have tried to recognise the fact that Quintana was not in the Yates group when the crash happened and reflect that in the times, but they didn't, maybe because they couldn't actually measure the time differences so clearly.

gsk82

Rick Chasey wrote:

He was still on the ground, because of the moto right?

They took the time on the road between Yates & Mollema, when Mollema was put on the ground by the moto and not Yates.

Yates was held up though. As i said, you can't just pluck a time gap out of the air. If Mollema stayed upright then Froome and Porte would still have been given the same time and would both be better off also. What makes you think Mollema is the sole victim?

rick_chasey

gsk82 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He was still on the ground, because of the moto right?

They took the time on the road between Yates & Mollema, when Mollema was put on the ground by the moto and not Yates.

Yates was held up though. As i said, you can't just pluck a time gap out of the air. If Mollema stayed upright then Froome and Porte would still have been given the same time and would both be better off also. What makes you think Mollema is the sole victim?

What makes you think he isn't?

norvernrob

I'm pretty amazed people are still crying foul about it.

When JAF was involved in the car accident he was in a breakaway nowhere near the finish, they're hardly going to award him the stage win when nobody had any clue who would have finished where.

If Froome/Porte/Mollema had just run into a moto or been knocked off by a spectator, then I could maybe understand people calling for the times to stand. But Froome's bike was then run over and smashed by a moto, rendering it useless. That's two separate incidents for a start. Then Quintana sails past, hanging onto a car.

The outcome of the stage was also in no doubt and could easily be called correctly within a few seconds for those groups affected. The Mollema group of 3 would have finished close together, maybe with some small gaps. Yates had dropped Quintana and all Quintana could do was cling onto Valverde's back wheel for dear life.

The winner out of it wasn't Froome, it was Movistar and TJ. They essentially got a time bonus.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

No-one was compensated. Those that were involved and held up by the crash were given their relative times at the time of the crash. Mollema's time was used as they basis of the times relative to all the other 170+ riders not involved because he was the first to finish.

It's the same as when a level crossing goes down similarly making the road temporarily unridable as here. Those uneffected carry on, but if a group has a gap and is held up, they get given that gap again when the barrier goes up. Only this time everything was chaotic so the gap got retroactively applied.

gsk82

Rick Chasey wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He was still on the ground, because of the moto right?

They took the time on the road between Yates & Mollema, when Mollema was put on the ground by the moto and not Yates.

Yates was held up though. As i said, you can't just pluck a time gap out of the air. If Mollema stayed upright then Froome and Porte would still have been given the same time and would both be better off also. What makes you think Mollema is the sole victim?

What makes you think he isn't?

If it didn't happen do you think Froome and Porte would have ended the stage 5:05 behind the stage winner? I'd suggest it would have been 4:40 tops. Therefore they both lost out.

Anonymous

#timeisrelative

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

No-one was compensated. Those that were involved and held up by the crash were given their relative times at the time of the crash. Mollema's time was used as they basis of the times relative to all the other 170+ riders not involved because he was the first to finish.

It's the same as when a level crossing goes down similarly making the road temporarily unridable as here. Those uneffected carry on, but if a group has a gap and is held up, they get given that gap again when the barrier goes up. Only this time everything was chaotic so the gap got retroactively applied.

Was Mollema adversely affected by the crash? Yes. He was brought down and so the gap between him and the chasers was reduced. The jury have not recognised that.

adr82

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

Mollema didn't get "compensated" because he was the least affected. He was up and riding again very quickly and finished almost 20s up on the chasing group, which is barely less than the 3 of them had at the point of the crash. You can argue that gap would have increased by the line, but there's no way to know for sure so there's no point in guessing. For all we know Froome might have attacked again and dropped him.

They didn't single him out for no "compensation" because he was Dutch or because he's not a big enough name, they just used his bloody time as a reference for Froome and Porte because he was with them when he crashed and he barely lost anything compared to them in the first place! If Porte had gotten away again along with Mollema and they'd finished together while Froome went jogging, they'd both have been treated exactly as Mollema was treated. I really don't see what he's got to complain about other than the incident itself.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.

Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

No-one was compensated. Those that were involved and held up by the crash were given their relative times at the time of the crash. Mollema's time was used as they basis of the times relative to all the other 170+ riders not involved because he was the first to finish.

It's the same as when a level crossing goes down similarly making the road temporarily unridable as here. Those uneffected carry on, but if a group has a gap and is held up, they get given that gap again when the barrier goes up. Only this time everything was chaotic so the gap got retroactively applied.

Was Mollema adversely affected by the crash? Yes. He was brought down and so the gap between him and the chasers was reduced. The jury have not recognised that.

He was given the same gap to the chasers as it was at the time of the crash.

stagehopper

Rick Chasey wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He was still on the ground, because of the moto right?

They took the time on the road between Yates & Mollema, when Mollema was put on the ground by the moto and not Yates.

Yates was held up though. As i said, you can't just pluck a time gap out of the air. If Mollema stayed upright then Froome and Porte would still have been given the same time and would both be better off also. What makes you think Mollema is the sole victim?

What makes you think he isn't?

Logic and common sense?

Lanterne_Rogue

A current top three of Froome (comfortably), Mollema (comfortably), Yates doesn't feel too wrong, no matter how we got here. Yates' gap to Quintana is surely smaller than it should be but not outrageously compromised. I'm open to the idea that things haven't necessarily been handled fairly, but I don't see a major injustice in the practical effect.

jscl

It's simple: Bauke was *not* disadvantaged. He was awarded the same time as the group he was in as that was the likely 'best case' time for all three of them. Whether or not someone else attacked from that group is immaterial.

Bauke got the time he should rightly have been given, as did Ritchie and Froomey.

/end

tailwindhome

Chris Froome ‏@chrisfroome · 6m6 minutes ago

Mystery solved #PokemonGo #TDF #TDF2016





As some on here have pointed out in the past. The biggest menace are fans with smartphones.

above_the_cows

Everyone's race ended at the time of the crash.

Bauke's included.

The fact that he got up and finished doesn't matter, that bit of the race doesn't count in terms of results. What matters and why I understand Bauke's frustration, up to a point, is that when everyone's race finished in terms of time gaps when Porte faceplanted the moto the organisers put Quintana in the group with Yates when he wasn't.

That said I'm not sure the organisers could fairly and accurately measure the time difference between Quintana and Mollema/Porte/Froome so they took the Yates group as the next best thing.

smithy21

^ is that actually what happened?

I thought, clearly wrongly, that Mollema rode to the finish and was given his time. Porte and Froome got given Mollema's time. Mollema therefore lost a few seconds hitting the deck and getting up, as did Froome and Porte through Mollema.

Garry H

smithy21 wrote:

^ is that actually what happened?

I thought, clearly wrongly, that Mollema rode to the finish and was given his time. Porte and Froome got given Mollema's time. Mollema therefore lost a few seconds hitting the deck and getting up, as did Froome and Porte through Mollema.

I thought same as you

stagehopper

The two groups were given times relative to their positions at the time of the crash as per:

https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/stat ... 6572838913

RichN95.

stagehopper wrote:

The two groups were given times relative to their positions at the time of the crash as per:

https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/stat ... 6572838913

Rasmussen taking a somewhat belated interest in the rules of cycling.

dougzz

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that everyone who was caught up in the crash in some way or other got compensated bar Mollema.
Porte gained time in the jury, Froome gained time in the jury Quintana, gained time in the jury etc.

Mollema was compensated in that if they'd have been allowed to race all previous evidence suggests Froome and Porte would have dropped him.

v2p

So I had a look at the Rasmussen tweet. Does the document actually say that they took the time gaps between the Mollema-Froome-Porte group and the Yates-TJVG-Quitana group at the point of the crash at 1200km?

It doesn't look that way. It looks like they've just taken Mollema's time at the finish line, 4H 36' 56", and awarded it to Froome and Porte. And they've taken Yate's finish line time and awarded it to Quintana, Valverde and TJVG.

The time gap at the end of the stage was different to the time gap at the point of the crash at 1200km. So Mollema did lose out.

Mollema was held up in the crash more so than the Yates group. So Yates and everyone else finished the stage closer to Mollema than they would be if the crash never happened. So Mollena should have gained more time on his GC podium rivals than he ended up with.

If that wasn't bad enough, Quintana, Valverde and TJVG finished the stage seven and twelve seconds respectively behind the Yates group. Had the crash not happened, these three probably would have been further behind the Yates group than just seven or twelve seconds. For Mollema, as well as Yates and the rest of the Yates' group, they should have gained time on Quintana, but they didn't.

DeVlaeminck

Yes Mollema, Froome and Porte probably all suffered due to the crash because they would all likely have had a larger gap than they were given.

I can't see the argument for giving Mollema a larger gap than Froome and Porte though - either you try and compensate for the crash in which case they all get the same time as they were together at the time - or you just let the result on the line stand.

RonB

I'm pretty sure that Mollema gained 19" on Quintana.

stagehopper

v2p wrote:

So I had a look at the Rasmussen tweet. Does the document actually say that they took the time gaps between the Mollema-Froome-Porte group and the Yates-TJVG-Quitana group at the point of the crash at 1200km?

It doesn't look that way. It looks like they've just taken Mollema's time at the finish line, 4H 36' 56", and awarded it to Froome and Porte. And they've taken Yate's finish line time and awarded it to Quintana, Valverde and TJVG.

The time gap at the end of the stage was different to the time gap at the point of the crash at 1200km. So Mollema did lose out.

Mollema was held up in the crash more so than the Yates group. So Yates and everyone else finished the stage closer to Mollema than they would be if the crash never happened. So Mollena should have gained more time on his GC podium rivals than he ended up with.

If that wasn't bad enough, Quintana, Valverde and TJVG finished the stage seven and twelve seconds respectively behind the Yates group. Had the crash not happened, these three probably would have been further behind the Yates group than just seven or twelve seconds. For Mollema, as well as Yates and the rest of the Yates' group, they should have gained time on Quintana, but they didn't.

Jury gave Mollema/Porte/Froome 22 seconds over the Yates group based on timings at the line.

I'm been back through the footage and time the Porte group had over the Yates group was between 17 and 19 seconds based on the groups passing a Friesland flag at the side of the road about 50 metres before the crash.

So, if anything, Mollema gained some time. The Yates group were in single file and included Valverde, with Quintana possibly a second off the back.

We don't know what would have happened if the crash hadn't happened - and that forms the basis of all such decisions. in the normal 3km rule