TDF 2017: Stage 4- Mondorf-les-Bains - Vittel 207.5kms *Spoilers*

FocusZing

The DQ is the question?

kingstongraham

No tA Doctor wrote:

OK, my take:
Sagan veers towards Cav, who had plenty of space before and is level (possibly in fornt) of him. As he closes in Cav leans in with his head (not a head-but) because Sagan's shoulder is coming at him at that height. He's got nowhere to go so has to hold his own as best he can. Sagan shoulder barges him, gets his arm caught on the hoods and flicks his elbow out.

I don't think the elbow caused the crash or was intentional. I do think Sagan closed the door on Cav intentionally and dangerously, using his shoulder.

Think this is spot on.

They were told before the tour that dangerous sprinting would be dealt with harshly. FWIW the UCI have said the punishment has nothing to do with the earlier crash.

lettingthedaysgoby

If it's nothing to do with the other crash it seems even harsher.

kingstongraham

“The jury decided to disqualify Peter Sagan because of the very serious manoeuvre in the sprint. I didn’t know anything about the first crash [at 1.5km out], it’s only about this crash,” Philippe Marien

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... nce-339632

pat1cp

FocusZing wrote:

The DQ is the question?

Personally, I don't think he should have been DQ'd, but rules change and the commissaires are usually best placed to apply the current rules.

I recall watching it live, and thinking, "What's Cav doing trying to find a gap up there"?? Gut instinct at the time I guess.

On a lighter note.....this made me laugh. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/i-thought-i-should-come-back-but-that-would-look-stupid-guillaume-van-keirsbulcks-190km-solo-break-339638

‘I thought I should go back, but that would look stupid’: Guillaume Van Keirsbulck’s 190km solo break.

lettingthedaysgoby

pat1cp wrote:

On a lighter note.....this made me laugh. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/i-thought-i-should-come-back-but-that-would-look-stupid-guillaume-van-keirsbulcks-190km-solo-break-339638

‘I thought I should go back, but that would look stupid’: Guillaume Van Keirsbulck’s 190km solo break.

Ride of the race so far 8)

FocusZing

^2. Ha, nice one:)

Lanterne_Rogue

The frame by frame photos are misleading, I think - it slows things down to the point where you can't see what's moving. It also misses the start of the collision - are these frames actually already after the elbow that sent Cavendish sideways? If so, you could argue it actually shows Sagan having two goes at him, as the elbow moves out again.

I still think DQ was an option open to the jury, even if I'm undecided about whether it was the right decision to do so. The more desperate people are to prove it didn't happen at all, the more I suspect the DQ's just about fitting though, because it suggests they accept the punishment itself would have been about right if only Sagan had done it...

bobmcstuff

underlayunderlay wrote:

The frame by frame photos are misleading, I think - it slows things down to the point where you can't see what's moving. It also misses the start of the collision - are these frames actually already after the elbow that sent Cavendish sideways? If so, you could argue it actually shows Sagan having two goes at him, as the elbow moves out again.

I still think DQ was an option open to the jury, even if I'm undecided about whether it was the right decision to do so. The more desperate people are to prove it didn't happen at all, the more I suspect the DQ's just about fitting though, because it suggests they accept the punishment itself would have been about right if only Sagan had done it...

Also slow motion bias is a well known phenomenon - slowing things down makes things look intentional since it gives the appearance that the protagonist had time to consider what they were doing.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

NOS interview one of the jury members.

Basically says Tour can't tolerate deliberately shoulder barging people into barriers, & they feel movement and the elbow particularly shows it's deliberate.

Currently watching.
Avond is currently getting owned by Vive le velo, guest wise.
Getting hard to spot a bloke.
Leontien van Moorsel and Thijs Zonneveld versus Robbie McEwen and Kris Boeckmans, tonight.
No contest.

What was Robbie saying??

Late sub: Allan Peiper
Basically they were not impressed. Went to some length to prove that the elbow never made contact and was indeed a balancing maneuver. "Racer's instinct" Pieper said.

Anyhow, as mentioned up thread.
Even though, under UCI rules they can't, Bora are making an official appeal.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... nce-339662

craigus89

Bo Duke wrote:

The organisers have to ensure that 60km/hr sprints are safe. It's a disaster to lose Cav and Sagan of course but in the long term it ensures these accidents don't occur again. The message is clear - safety first. Everything else is semantics.

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

The reason these guys are the best sprinters in the world is partly because they throw caution to the wind, you think they are going to be mid-sprint and then in a split second reconsider going for a gap in case they get in trouble with the commisaires? And that would be exciting to watch?

Give me a break.

Bo Duke

if you want a break, have a kit-kat, everyone knows that and you don't have to ask me.

Apart from my own view expressed above, apparently the UCI came to the same conclusion.

above_the_cows

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This frame by frame stuff is odd.

When I saw the sprint I thought "Sagan elbowed Cav and he crashed".

Next thing I saw was Sagan going over to Cav and saying in an interview "I was partly to blame."

I don't have strong views on if it's a DQ or whatever but he knew some punishment was inbound.

All this "he's totally innocent" is just dying in a ditch chat. Not even Sagan agrees with you on that.

Agreed. You could hear the nervousness in his voice when he was interviewed straight after the stage. He knew he was going to cop some punishment.

Yes and the frame by frame is spatio-temporally limited.

When Sagan went to the Dimension Data team bus instead of going full on Farah the pugilist Buddhist he went to speak to Bernie and looked really scared like a little boy talking to the head boy. He knew he'd made a boo boo.

Craigus89 wrote:

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

Really? Do you really need to ask about one of the basic principles underpinning the rule of law? People are punished not only because they are guilty and it is deemed they deserve punishment but also as a way of disciplining others to not commit the same offence.

kingstongraham

But how did Sagan not win most aggressive rider?

above_the_cows

KingstonGraham wrote:

But how did Sagan not win most aggressive rider?

Chapeau.

dinyull

Dinyull wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I think the mistake Sagan made was doing it next to the barrier. In the middle of the road it would be fair game, or a fairer game.

Yeah, in the middle of the road you wouldn't give that a second look. In the barrier though and it really isn't a good look for Sagan.

Blatant use of the elbow, in fact the elbow was after he had hit the barriers, so Sagan was putting Cav in the barriers one way or another.

After seeing a different video, I've completely changed my view.

Sagan flicks his elbow to untangle himself from Cav's bar/shifter. Bad, bad call to remove him from the race.

craigus89

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

Really? Do you really need to ask about one of the basic principles underpinning the rule of law? People are punished not only because they are guilty and it is deemed they deserve punishment but also as a way of disciplining others to not commit the same offence.

This isn't that clear cut though is it, which is clear from the mixed reaction from everywhere, Journo's, Twitter, on here. Half the peleton will likely think that he didn't do much wrong and it was "a racing incident". So how is it supposed to be an example for others not to do the same.

above_the_cows

Craigus89 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

Really? Do you really need to ask about one of the basic principles underpinning the rule of law? People are punished not only because they are guilty and it is deemed they deserve punishment but also as a way of disciplining others to not commit the same offence.

This isn't that clear cut though is it, which is clear from the mixed reaction from everywhere, Journo's, Twitter, on here. Half the peloton will likely think that he didn't do much wrong and it was "a racing incident". So how is it supposed to be an example for others not to do the same.

Because regardless of what the serially outraged on Twitter and journalists with a Sagan hard-on have to say he got disqualified. All the rest is just noise.

craigus89

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

Really? Do you really need to ask about one of the basic principles underpinning the rule of law? People are punished not only because they are guilty and it is deemed they deserve punishment but also as a way of disciplining others to not commit the same offence.

This isn't that clear cut though is it, which is clear from the mixed reaction from everywhere, Journo's, Twitter, on here. Half the peloton will likely think that he didn't do much wrong and it was "a racing incident". So how is it supposed to be an example for others not to do the same.

Because regardless of what the serially outraged on Twitter and journalists with a Sagan hard-on have to say he got disqualified. All the rest is just noise.

So you think it is unanimous amongst the whole peleton that they agree Sagan was in the wrong?

above_the_cows

Craigus89 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

How does DQ'ing someone involved in a crash make subsequent sprints safer?

Really? Do you really need to ask about one of the basic principles underpinning the rule of law? People are punished not only because they are guilty and it is deemed they deserve punishment but also as a way of disciplining others to not commit the same offence.

This isn't that clear cut though is it, which is clear from the mixed reaction from everywhere, Journo's, Twitter, on here. Half the peloton will likely think that he didn't do much wrong and it was "a racing incident". So how is it supposed to be an example for others not to do the same.

Because regardless of what the serially outraged on Twitter and journalists with a Sagan hard-on have to say he got disqualified. All the rest is just noise.

So you think it is unanimous amongst the whole peloton that they agree Sagan was in the wrong?

They don't have to agree, that's not how disciplining works, they only have to fear the same punishment.

dish_dash

AtC on the money about punishment.

We've seen Sagan bullying his way around the peloton for a while... was bound to come a cropper at some point. He needed a bit of disciplining. The sport is bigger than the man. Journos sobbing about it have gone well down in my opinion - notably some of the american journos.

smithy21

No she isn't.

This will still happen. You are asking athletes to make spilt second decisions in the heat of battle. They will get some wrong.

Not just in cycling- disciplining people in rugby doesn't stamp out players smacking each other, eye gouging, late hits.

Richmond Racer 2

dish_dash wrote:

AtC on the money about punishment.

We've seen Sagan bullying his way around the peloton for a while... was bound to come a cropper at some point. He needed a bit of disciplining. The sport is bigger than the man. Journos sobbing about it have gone well down in my opinion - notably some of the american journos.

Setting up a gofundme just to fund Kleenex for them to cry into

graeme_s-2

Rick Chasey wrote:

People who are saying "Cav was already falling!!! The elbow is just instinct!! Nothing to do with the crash!!

I agree with the above (although I'd have used fewer exclamation marks)

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's Cav's fault!!!"

I don't agree with this at all. Sagan shut the door on Cav and caused the crash, it's his fault. The elbow looks bad, but I don't think it's relevant to the incident. It may well be relevant to the punishment, as that photo of Cav falling while Sagan sticks his elbow out makes the sport look bad. Which is unfortunate.

Jez mon

Fundamentally, Cavendish went for a gap that was very tight, Sagan closed the door on him.

The elbow looks terrible from certain angles, but from others seems possibly innocuous.

Ultimately, I think for the punishment to be worthwhile, you either need to start punishing sprinters consistently for deviating from their line, regardless of whether a crash happens or not.

Lanterne_Rogue

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

AtC on the money about punishment.

We've seen Sagan bullying his way around the peloton for a while... was bound to come a cropper at some point. He needed a bit of disciplining. The sport is bigger than the man. Journos sobbing about it have gone well down in my opinion - notably some of the american journos.

Setting up a gofundme just to fund Kleenex for them to cry into

No need. The way some of them speak about him, I suspect the Kleenex was already close to hand.

Jez mon

In F1, we've just had a driver ram another driver and end up pretty much getting away with it. I have a feeling that it's due to Vettel's stature within the sport. It's good to see that cycling doesn't behave with that much reverence to it's biggest star.

FocusZing

Looking forward to the next sprint to see what happens. A president set! Two down...

Dorset_Boy

smithy21 wrote:

No she isn't.

This will still happen. You are asking athletes to make spilt second decisions in the heat of battle. They will get some wrong.

Not just in cycling- disciplining people in rugby doesn't stamp out players smacking each other, eye gouging, late hits.

But your comparison is plain wrong smithy. There's hugely less foul play in (top level) rugby now than there was 15+ years ago, because players know there is a greater chance their actions will be caught on film and they will be cited and subsequently punished.

Of course mistakes will be made, but if you don't punish bad mistakes then riders will push and push and it becomes a bit wild west. DQ'ing the world champion reminds all riders to reduce their recklessness.

Dorset_Boy

FocusZing wrote:

Looking forward to the next sprint to see what happens. A president set! Two down...

President - who? The tangoed fool?