TdF 2016 Stage 12 *Contains spoilers*

iainf72

The whole situation is difficult. The choices really are

- Allow result on line to stand. Fine in theory, but the unintended consequence might be that people think they can interfere with the race and influence the result
- Null the whole stage. Maybe not a terrible option but it's punishing the riders for nothing they had control over
- Take timings are certain point in stage. Hard because you don't have a golden source for this kind of data
- Do what they did.

Perhaps they need to start controlling the crowds on the road by taxing them to watch. The Ventoux situation robbed us of a decent race on the mountain.

rick_chasey

Make last 4km or whatever ticketed with 1 euro tickets on the door - cap the number of fans.

adr82

https://vine.co/v/573Y3UrwMtM

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Make last 4km or whatever ticketed with 1 euro tickets on the door - cap the number of fans.

Got it in 1.

This is what needs to happen.

RonB

adr82 wrote:

Very good, but I think he might have pulled a muscle at the end there :oops:

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

The whole situation is difficult. The choices really are

- Allow result on line to stand. Fine in theory, but the unintended consequence might be that people think they can interfere with the race and influence the result
- Null the whole stage. Maybe not a terrible option but it's punishing the riders for nothing they had control over
- Take timings are certain point in stage. Hard because you don't have a golden source for this kind of data
- Do what they did.

Perhaps they need to start controlling the crowds on the road by taxing them to watch. The Ventoux situation robbed us of a decent race on the mountain.

I'm not sure that any of the options you suggest entirely remove the possibility of a 'fan' influencing the race.

Another issues is just how badly written the rules of cycling are. I've been following @DavidAllenGreen 's comment on Twitter with regard to Article 50 and the Labour Party leadership debacle. Wonder what he'd make of the UCI's drafting

RichN95.

Had it happened lower down the mountain then I think the results would have stood. However, this happened in an area that normally would have been barriers. There is no 3km rule for MTFs for good reason, but it is with the understanding that, for big races, that that 3km is barriered and free of obstruction.

It was a unique situation that the drafters of the rules could not have foreseen.

TheBigBean

I mostly blame the motorbikes. They need rules on how close they are allowed to get.

Separately, Froome was interviewed on the ITV highlights tonight about his natural break with 30km. He seemed to think there was cross team sport for it (allowing the Sky team back on), although Valverde's reaction implied this wasn't the case. I hope he was completely unaware of this because otherwise he's a pretty stunning liar. He must have been at least aware that it is an extremely unusual request.

rick_chasey

If it wasn't the yellow jersey they'd not have done anything.

I'd even go as far as to say by doing the whole running thing he helped make it look even more farcical and so more likely to get a ruling.

Sure that wasn't the intent nor the thought that went through his head.

If it was just Porte or Bauke they wouldn't have done much.

jscl

TheBigBean wrote:

I mostly blame the motorbikes. They need rules on how close they are allowed to get.

Separately, Froome was interviewed on the ITV highlights tonight about his natural break with 30km. He seemed to think there was cross team sport for it (allowing the Sky team back on), although Valverde's reaction implied this wasn't the case. I hope he was completely unaware of this because otherwise he's a pretty stunning liar. He must have been at least aware that it is an extremely unusual request.

Valverde's main issue wasn't with the fact they were needing to slow down for Froomey, it was at good old Spartacus for trying to orchestrate it.

More of a "Who the **** do you think you are?" / "We don't need you to tell us what to do, we don't answer to you."

adr82

Rick Chasey wrote:

If it wasn't the yellow jersey they'd not have done anything.

I'd even go as far as to say by doing the whole running thing he helped make it look even more farcical and so more likely to get a ruling.

Sure that wasn't the intent nor the thought that went through his head.

If it was just Porte or Bauke they wouldn't have done much.

I agree, but in that case it's quite fortunate it happened to someone they couldn't ignore so easily. Now if (or when...) it happens again they at least have the option of following this fairly sensible precedent for dealing with it. Or they can update their rules to address it explicitly!

Rick Chasey wrote:

Make last 4km or whatever ticketed with 1 euro tickets on the door - cap the number of fans.

I would really like to see numbers limited, I just don't see how it could realistically be done without masses of manpower. On climbs with multiple access routes people are going to try and bypass it, or simply turn up before anyone starts counting! And it'd also lead to more people pitching up further down the mountain, which is more or less what led to the problems on Ventoux. Not that I've got anything more realistic to suggest... a much heavier police/steward presence would be a start though.

Lanterne_Rogue

One thing I wonder is whether simply painting lines on the mountain stages - a visual 'this far and no further' would help? Doubt you can educate people to see the tarmac itself as sacrosanct, but some sort of clue about the minimum space for racing might be enough of a psychological hint to keep back a bit. Humans are generally pretty good at responding to rules - the problem at the moment is that closing right in appears to be 'accepted' and maybe adding a purely psychological barrier would remind them that it isn't.

Even if it didn't ultimately work, it might be worth a trial - cheaper to do than barriers and access points down the whole climb.

adr82

underlayunderlay wrote:

One thing I wonder is whether simply painting lines on the mountain stages - a visual 'this far and no further' would help? Doubt you can educate people to see the tarmac itself as sacrosanct, but some sort of clue about the minimum space for racing might be enough of a psychological hint to keep back a bit. Humans are generally pretty good at responding to rules - the problem at the moment is that closing right in appears to be 'accepted' and maybe adding a purely psychological barrier would remind them that it isn't.

Even if it didn't ultimately work, it might be worth a trial - cheaper to do than barriers and access points down the whole climb.

They mentioned something like this on the Cycling Podcast, someone emailed them with the suggestion. He said they should have a vehicle that drives up the climb with the rest of the pre-race caravan and paints a line on both sides of the road as it goes, spaced wide enough for a car with room to spare. The fans would then have a clear indicator of how much space they should leave open and it'd make it easier for any police/stewards trying to control the crowd to be able to say "just get back behind that line!". Definitely think it'd be worth a try.

Lanterne_Rogue

adr82 wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

One thing I wonder is whether simply painting lines on the mountain stages - a visual 'this far and no further' would help? Doubt you can educate people to see the tarmac itself as sacrosanct, but some sort of clue about the minimum space for racing might be enough of a psychological hint to keep back a bit. Humans are generally pretty good at responding to rules - the problem at the moment is that closing right in appears to be 'accepted' and maybe adding a purely psychological barrier would remind them that it isn't.

Even if it didn't ultimately work, it might be worth a trial - cheaper to do than barriers and access points down the whole climb.

They mentioned something like this on the Cycling Podcast, someone emailed them with the suggestion. He said they should have a vehicle that drives up the climb with the rest of the pre-race caravan and paints a line on both sides of the road as it goes, spaced wide enough for a car with room to spare. The fans would then have a clear indicator of how much space they should leave open and it'd make it easier for any police/stewards trying to control the crowd to be able to say "just get back behind that line!". Definitely think it'd be worth a try.

Probably best do it before that. Suspect doing it on the day would result in 400,000 people with a line painted neatly across their shoes shuffling it forward as far as they liked...

stagehopper

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Make last 4km or whatever ticketed with 1 euro tickets on the door - cap the number of fans.

Got it in 1.

This is what needs to happen.

As they did with Box Hill during the 2012 Olympic Road Race. Admittedly a smaller hill but theory worked. Couldn't get anywhere near the hill.

RichN95.

You can do wonders with a bit of rope.

adr82

RichN95 wrote:

You can do wonders with a bit of rope.

I know we all want to do something about these fans, but surely hanging them is going a bit far?

v2p

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

Oh yeah definitely not. I don't think Mollema should have been given a larger gap than Froome or Porte. I think the ultimately most fair decision that could be made, was made. I was just replying to those others earlier on in the thread that seemed to think Mollema had no reason to feel hard done by, when he did.

stagehopper wrote:

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

I don't think Mollema should have been awarded more time over Fromme and Porte. Like you say it would be impossible to say what would have happened if the crash hadn't happened. As mentioned above, mainly my post was about reasons why Mollema should feel hard done by, even if there couldn't have been a fairer decision made at the end of it.

But I disagree that if anything Mollema gained some time due to the ruling. Mollema was very likely to have been stronger than the Yates group (even though we can never know for sure), so to say that Mollema if anything gained some time doesn't quite work out. Sure Mollema 'gained' time in that he had a 19 second time gap at the time of the crash, and by the end of the stage he had a 22 second gap. But think about it this way. Mollema already had a 19 second time gap. He was held up by the crash, more so than Yates, so Yates closed that gap a little bit. From then onwards Mollema was able to extend that gap out again all the way up to 22 seconds. So with the decision the race jury made, Mollema didn't if anything gain some time.

Of course I'll reiterate that I don't think there could have been any other solution. Just that Mollema had reason to feel hard done by.

DeadCalm

There is a valid argument that the results should have just stood but, if you are going to try and create a fair result out of the mess, then Froome and Porte had to be given the same time as Mollema. The one I still don't understand is Quintana being given the same time as Yates.