# This wont be popular...



## PaulSecteur (24 Jul 2013)

First, I have to state that Im not a racing pundit or even a regular spectator of races. I may have missed some of the facts. (also, this is a few days late)

But I cant help but think that Chris Froome got off very lightly for his late feed.

I know he got fined, docked some time and all that, but its still cheating - or at best "Bending the rules"

I guess anyone of the top guys would have done the same - Im not specifically having a pop at the champ - the punishment is so lax that it was a no brainer in his situation to do it. But with the recent history of cheating in cycling even a little indiscretion would be best avoided, no matter how small.

Im sure more would have been made of it should his lead be measured in seconds rather than minutes... But it just not British!

Or to put the shimano on the other foot... If Chris had been leading by seconds and a late feed allowed a competitor to take the lead despite the time docked would that have slipped so quietly under the radar?

I guess I`m just not a fan of cheating, or bending the rules. Im still bitter about Maradonas handball, and I don't like football!



I think I will need something more substantial than my bike helmet after this post.
"Oi, Grandad... Do you still have your air raid warden helmet I can use please?"

(Please remember Im not having a pop at Chris, more the rules that make bending the rules a viable alternative.)


----------



## Crackle (24 Jul 2013)

well covered in the tour thread if you want to look.


----------



## thom (24 Jul 2013)

PaulSecteur said:


> (Please remember Im not having a pop at Chris, more the rules that make bending the rules a viable alternative.)


I ask you, what is the rule for ? This isn't a question of what the infraction is, rather why is the rule there in the first place ?

I think a good place to start when talking about whether the punishment is appropriate is to understand why the rule is there, not to say the punishment is inappropriate and not know what was wrong in the first place.


----------



## PaulSecteur (24 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> I ask you, what is the rule for ?


 
I don't know. Possibly safety so people aren't riding one handed as the hussle and bussle of the end of the stage approaches, possible to make sure everyone has enough energy to survive to the end, possible to stop team cars trying to follow and getting in the way of the final push.

But what I do know is that all the riders will know the rules, and when your a pro I don't think breaking them should be an option.


----------



## rich p (24 Jul 2013)

FFS


----------



## Speicher (24 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> FFS


 

@rich p

We have not met, but you can guess that I usually avoid strong language. On this occasion though, I have to agree with you.


----------



## martint235 (24 Jul 2013)

To me I'm surprised by the cynicism of it. Take a parallel from rugby, if you accidentally knock on you#'re looking at a scrum to the other side. Knock on deliberately to stop the other side scoring a try and you're on a yellow card, possibly red depending on the ref.

Richie Porte made no pretence that he didn't know that what he was doing was against the rules. It was done purely and simply to stop Froome losing even more time. Now I quite like the fact that Froome won so I'm not that fussed but does it set a precedent: If we don't get the leader some food, we'll lose maybe a minute possibly more, if we break the rules we'll get a 20 second penalty.......


----------



## laurence (24 Jul 2013)

PaulSecteur said:


> *First, I have to state that Im not a racing pundit or even a regular spectator of races. I may have missed some of the facts*. (also, this is a few days late)


 
well, perhaps you should read up on the rules and have some idea of what you are on about. maybe i should go on f**tball forums and ask why the player isn't thrown out the game whenever a free kick is given.

go read the TDF thread and find out more


----------



## zizou (24 Jul 2013)

PaulSecteur said:


> First, I have to state that Im not a racing pundit or even a regular spectator of races. I may have missed some of the facts. (also, this is a few days late)
> 
> But I cant help but think that Chris Froome got off very lightly for his late feed.
> 
> ...


 

I think this is partly due to you not watching much cycle racing - i dont think anyone who is a regular spectator of races thinks he got off lightly - He broke a rule, he got caught and he got punished according to the rule book (indeed the time penalty he got in addition to the fine was harsher than other riders got for similar infringements). Its not cheating any more than the magic spanner or drafting a car for a few seconds after a puncture to get back on the peloton - after every day in the tour there is a list of riders and the fines they get for these minor infringements.

To take the football analogy further it isn't the equivalent of a handball goal it is more like the equivalent of trying to steal half a yard when placing the ball for a free kick or in the defence edging forward in the wall to make the angles harder. Its against the rules, everyone does it, its not a big deal.


----------



## thom (24 Jul 2013)

PaulSecteur said:


> I don't know.
> ...
> But what I do know is that all the riders will know the rules, and when your a pro I don't think breaking them should be an option.


 
Well, the rule says that feeding as Froome/Porte did clearly entails a maximum time penalty of 20 secs.

You're saying the rule should be harsher but that you aren't sure what the rule is for... 

Um, can you understand people might not be convinced of your wisdom ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jul 2013)

Professional foul, probably not even worth a yellow card.


----------



## ayceejay (24 Jul 2013)

I agree that it was a minor infraction that even the sternest Calvinist would view with leniency and to call it 'cheating' is exaggerating. Hypoglycemia is nasty but easily fixed with glucose, it cannot be ignored and could lead to disorientation even unconsciousness neither of which are ideal conditions for a racing cyclist rapidly riding up a mountain. Feeding the current leader of the TdeF a gel to prevent this is hardly a moral issue and the right decision was made both by the riders and by the officials. I agree with zizou "its not a big deal".


----------



## Phaeton (24 Jul 2013)

Why has no-one answered the OP's other point, why the rule? I've tried to Google to no avail.

Alan...


----------



## rich p (24 Jul 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Why has no-one answered the OP's other point, why the rule? I've tried to Google to no avail.
> 
> Alan...


They have ad nauseam in the TdF thread.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> well covered in the tour thread if you want to look.


You really think so ?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> I ask you, what is the rule for ? This isn't a question of what the infraction is, rather why is the rule there in the first place ?
> 
> I think a good place to start when talking about whether the punishment is appropriate is to understand why the rule is there, not to say the punishment is inappropriate and not know what was wrong in the first place.


The rule was a get out of jail free card. As has already been stated it was not introduced to allow a rider to win a GT arguably . Sky and Porte were warned not to and as Martin has indicated in many other sports would result in only one action. You can spin it anyway you like sky cheated But it doesn't matter it was only a little one! And people wonder why pro racing lacks credibility.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Jul 2013)

I found http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tour-de-france-2013-spoilers.129165/post-2564444 any idea where in the 167 pages I'll find it?

Alan...


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (24 Jul 2013)

Phaeton said:


> I found http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tour-de-france-2013-spoilers.129165/post-2564444 any idea where in the 167 pages I'll find it?
> 
> Alan...


Thanks to Raindog for this post in the TDF thread:

_"Unauthorised refreshments"_
http://www.kspzkol.pl/pliki/12e.pdf
- in the first 50 km of stage CHF200 & 50 secs
- in the last 20 km of stage CHF200 and 20 secs per offence


The thread talks about it here somewhere for a few pages. Similar questions are asked. Now whilst it is breaking the rules, the rules are VERY clear as to the punishment.


----------



## tigger (25 Jul 2013)

I think the main thing to look for is the reason for the rule. Is it intended to deprive riders of food or water? I don't think so. Is it intended to stop riders receiving "sticky" bottles at key times in the race, ie gaining a tow from the team car? Quite possibly. Any other reasons? Probably a few. I don't know the answer, but I'm fairly sure race organisers are not trying to deprive riders of food.

Whatever the reason the degree of punishment is so light that it doesn't act as a deterrent. So it's a pointless rule worth breaking if needs must. It's a professional sport and you bend the rules sometimes. Was it really cheating in Froome's case? No. Did he gain an unfair advantage? No. He just needed some food and neither him nor Porte had any as a result of the team car's break down earlier.

Now, Cancellara didn't go back to the team car in the last 20km at Roubaix this year, but he blatantly cheated to a much greater degree than Froome. I can't find the best video but have a look at about 2.07 and notice how the tow he receives pulls him right past the Sky rider he was sat behind. Probably helped win him the race! I also think he had a few more sneaky tows but can't find the video


View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUFwms7f4wg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtUFwms7f4wg


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

The difference here is they were warned not to do it though.


----------



## martint235 (25 Jul 2013)

tigger said:


> I think the main thing to look for is the reason for the rule. Is it intended to deprive riders of food or water? I don't think so. Is it intended to stop riders receiving "sticky" bottles at key times in the race, ie gaining a tow from the team car? Quite possibly. Any other reasons? Probably a few. I don't know the answer, but I'm fairly sure race organisers are not trying to deprive riders of food.
> 
> Whatever the reason the degree of punishment is so light that it doesn't act as a deterrent. So it's a pointless rule worth breaking if needs must. It's a professional sport and you bend the rules sometimes. Was it really cheating in Froome's case? No. *Did he gain an unfair advantage?* No. He just needed some food and neither him nor Porte had any as a result of the team car's break down earlier.
> 
> Now, Cancellara didn't go back to the team car in the last 20km at Roubaix this year, but he blatantly cheated to a much greater degree than Froome. I can't find the best video but have a look at about 2.07 and notice how the tow he receives pulls him right past the Sky rider he was sat behind. Probably helped win him the race! I also think he had a few more sneaky tows but can't find the video


 
I think he did gain an advantage. Do you really think he wouldn't have lost more time if he'd not taken energy on board?

The Cancellara thing is a red herring unless you want to go down the road of "Someone else broke the rules, therefore it's ok if I do"

And to Lukesdad's comment brings me back to the cycnicism argument. They were specifically told not to do it.


----------



## raindog (25 Jul 2013)

The race officials publish a list of similar rule infringements after every stage, which go largely ignored. This was only picked up because Froome was race leader, and because he rides for Sky, the team every man and his dog loves to hate.
For God's sake let it drop.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

It's a valid debate there is no reason for you or anybody else to contribute if you don't want to Raindog.


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> The rule was a get out of jail free card. As has already been stated it was not introduced to allow a rider to win a GT arguably . Sky and Porte were warned not to and as Martin has indicated in many other sports would result in only one action. You can spin it anyway you like sky cheated But it doesn't matter it was only a little one! And people wonder why pro racing lacks credibility.


Um, we know Froome & Porte broke the rules - they committed an infraction and accepted the punishment. That isn't being debated. In most sports, you accept the punishment as stipulated for the infraction - some people here see the rule breaking as a purely cynical action that ought to be measured and somehow over rule the rule's punishment.
That doesn't make sense when you clearly don't know what the rule is for.

It would be more intelligent to debate the rule, not Froome & Porte's actions. I defy you to find a professional sport where players don't attempt to push the boundaries of the rules. Football, Tennis, Rugby, Cricket, Motor Sport.... are they all absent of credibility ?

The perpetual mud slinging at Froome is boring. Why is it people are motivated to try to find a reason to hate him ? Given the flack he has taken from the press as a consequence of riders 10 years ago, to focus on this aspect of his behaviour and brand him a cheat is pure one-eyed ignorance.

Froome now stands as GB's greatest ever Grand Tour rider and if you want credibility as an observer, show some interest in the guy's achievements on Ax-3-Domaines, Ventoux etc.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> It's a valid debate there is no reason for you or anybody else to contribute if you don't want to Raindog.


 
But there is no 'debate' on the incident or the punishment in terms of what happened. They broke the rules, they received the stated punishment. There is no provision for treating the race leader or any particular individual any differently from any other. Froome and Porte were treated exactly the same way as every other rider who does this or commits any other infraction (and there is a whole list in every stage of every race). To believe otherwise is simple ignorance of pro-cycling and/or engaging in the weird anti-Sky / anti-Froome hysteria that seems to infect certain other discussion forums.

There is room for a debate on whether anyone thinks the rules or the punishments need changing. But even that wouldn't affect what happened here retrospectively.


----------



## martint235 (25 Jul 2013)

I'd just like to make clear I'm not mud slinging at Froome or Sky. I like Froome and I'm also in favour of doing what it takes to win including bending the rules if necessary.

My posts are purely about the handling of deliberate rule breaking. As I've pointed out, in rugby the punishment is dependent on the advantage gained by committing the offence and whether or not it was seen as entirely deliberate.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> Um, we know Froome & Porte broke the rules - they committed an infraction and accepted the punishment. That isn't being debated. In most sports, you accept the punishment as stipulated for the infraction - some people here see the rule breaking as a purely cynical action that ought to be measured and somehow over rule the rule's punishment.
> That doesn't make sense when you clearly don't know what the rule is for.
> 
> It would be more intelligent to debate the rule, not Froome & Porte's actions. I defy you to find a professional sport where players don't attempt to push the boundaries of the rules. Football, Tennis, Rugby, Cricket, Motor Sport.... are they all absent of credibility ?
> ...


Hang on I take it you can read ? Where have I called for Froome to be punished take some advice from your chums and read the Tdf thread . For your info I happen to think the best rider one the first time for many years . Sky after the warning made the calculation it would be Porte that would be punished this is where it became cynical it was sky and Porte who should have been punished and punished heavily, clear now ?


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> My posts are purely about the handling of deliberate rule breaking. As I've pointed out, in rugby the punishment is dependent on the advantage gained by committing the offence and whether or not it was seen as entirely deliberate.


 
In Rugby, the subjectivity of the interpretation of the rules leads to the players trying as hard as possible to get away with things that they know may or may not be punished. Players know refs sometimes miss infringements (like Neil Back in the Euro cup final against Munster). The punishments are clearly laid out and when Paul O'Connell comes through a ruck to concede a penalty for the Lions as opposed to a try, we don't point fingers at him for bringing the sport into disrepute.
The rules aren't absolute but players take calculated risks all the time to find out what they can get away with and that is seen as an integral part of the game.


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Hang on I take it you can read ? Where have I called for Froome to be punished take some advice from your chums and read the Tdf thread . For your info I happen to think the best rider one the first time for many years . Sky after the warning made the calculation it would be Porte that would be punished this is where it became cynical it was sky and Porte who should have been punished and punished heavily, clear now ?


 
I'm sorry but you clearly stated that their actions called into question the credibility of cycling. I think that is bollocks.

The rest of the post stands if not as points relevant directly to you but to the people who are determined to denigrate Froome's achievement out of childishness.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

2565654 said:


> Are you saying that it would not have been as serious had they not been?


In my view if Froome had dropped back to the car picked up his gel and gone on his way taken his punishment no more would have been said. ( well maybe)


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> I'm sorry but you clearly stated that their actions called into question the credibility of cycling. I think that is bollocks.
> 
> The rest of the post stands if not as points relevant directly to you but to the people who are determined to denigrate Froome's achievement out of childishness.


I did,this is just the most public of consistent rule breaking there is no deterant so why bother with them in the first place ? If you want it to be credible enforce the rules with proper penalties.


----------



## martint235 (25 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> In Rugby, the subjectivity of the interpretation of the rules leads to the players trying as hard as possible to get away with things that they know may or may not be punished. Players know refs sometimes miss infringements (like Neil Back in the Euro cup final against Munster). The punishments are clearly laid out and when Paul O'Connell comes through a ruck to concede a penalty for the Lions as opposed to a try, we don't point fingers at him for bringing the sport into disrepute.
> The rules aren't absolute but players take calculated risks all the time to find out what they can get away with and that is seen as an integral part of the game.


 I've not said that anyone is bringing the sport into disrepute, I've just asked why the punishment for a deliberate and calculated infringement is not more serious than if it had been a genuine mistake.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> But there is no 'debate' on the incident or the punishment in terms of what happened. They broke the rules, they received the stated punishment. There is no provision for treating the race leader or any particular individual any differently from any other. Froome and Porte were treated exactly the same way as every other rider who does this or commits any other infraction (and there is a whole list in every stage of every race). To believe otherwise is simple ignorance of pro-cycling and/or engaging in the weird anti-Sky / anti-Froome hysteria that seems to infect certain other discussion forums.
> 
> There is room for a debate on whether anyone thinks the rules or the punishments need changing. But even that wouldn't affect what happened here retrospectively.


You obviously spend far too much time on such sites I'm glad to see you've managed to extricate yourself. Have I dropped even further on your ignorance scale? I can't wait to see the swingometer lol


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I did,this is just the most public of consistent rule breaking there is no deterant so why bother with them in the first place ? If you want it to be credible enforce the rules with proper penalties.


 
If the UCI think the purpose of the rule merits greater sanction, they ought to change it. 
If the purpose of the rule is to
1) improve safety of riders around cars in the final part of a race where there is much going on
2) prevent sticky bottles 
It isn't clear that what happened when Froome bonked is what they are trying to guard against really, so I see very little merit in the complaint.


----------



## tigger (25 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> I think he did gain an advantage. Do you really think he wouldn't have lost more time if he'd not taken energy on board?
> 
> The Cancellara thing is a red herring unless you want to go down the road of "Someone else broke the rules, therefore it's ok if I do"
> 
> And to Lukesdad's comment brings me back to the cycnicism argument. They were specifically told not to do it.


 
We don't know how much of a boost he gained from the gel, but the rule makers estimate 20 seconds so thats whats enforced. Either way, Froome gained no more of an advantage than riders who simply stocked up with foods from team cars before the last 10km. He definitely didn't gain a tow from the car, which is what the rule, in my view, is trying (weakly) to deter.

No, the Cancellara point isn't trying to the assert the 2 wrongs make a right principle. What is clear, is that the great and universally loved Cancellara used a tow to close down a break which gave a clear and tangible advantage over his competitors. Yet I've not seen one comment lambasting him and asking for him to be punished. People are getting personal with Froome as he's less popular, thats the point


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

2565716 said:


> I am confused, in that I do not see any material difference between this and sending Richie Porte to do it.


 
I think there was some material difference - it did take energy for Porte to drop back and then catch Froome again. For Froome to stay in his rhythm helped him but we do know there was no sticky bottle benefit to Froome.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

2565716 said:


> I am confused, in that I do not see any material difference between this and sending Richie Porte to do it.


Simpl because Froome would claim it came from a teammate (legal) and not directly from the car (ileagal)


----------



## zizou (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> In my view if Froome had dropped back to the car picked up his gel and gone on his way taken his punishment no more would have been said. ( well maybe)


 
If a team leader has a domestique with him then it will usually always be the domestique going back for the bottle or a gel whether in the last 6km or the last 106 km - If Froome had gone back himself people would be criticising him for getting a sticky bottle and wanting him chucked out the tour for that!


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> I've not said that anyone is bringing the sport into disrepute, I've just asked why the punishment for a deliberate and calculated infringement is not more serious than if it had been a genuine mistake.


 
First, a sticky bottle style infringement is hardly a mistake. Second, the time penalty and fine given are both flexible subject to an upper limit - Froome & Porte got the max time penalty. There is room to differentiate the punishment.


----------



## zizou (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Simpl because Froome would claim it came from a teammate (legal) and not directly from the car (ileagal)


 
He didnt though did he? Both Froome, Porte and the DS were open about the infraction, didnt hide behind the excuse of it being a teammate that had given him it.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

W


zizou said:


> He didnt though did he? Both Froome, Porte and the DS were open about the infraction, didnt hide behind the excuse of it being a teammate that had given him it.


They didn't really have a choice after making it so blatantly obvious did they ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Jul 2013)

I'm not completely sure I fully understand this thread but, doing jury service recently we had to deal with the notion of ''joint enterprise'' - whereby, in layman's terms, the hit is shared between the parties. DS Nicolas Portal knew the situation and decided to take the hit (though there was some reference to a mechanical with the car preventing Froome or Porte from being able to stock up in the last permitted zone but it seems the commissaire did not exempt them from the rule). Porte, Portal and Froome were all involved in this ''joint enterprise.''


----------



## tigger (25 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> W
> They didn't really have a choice after making it so blatantly obvious did they ?


 
No of course not, they could hardly conceal it in the first place! Its not a sneaky short cut. They knew what the risk/reward was and made a decision.

The question which you and others should be asking is what is the point of this rule, not lambasting Froome or Porte for taking advantage of it!


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Porte, Portal and Froome were all involved in this ''joint enterprise.''


 
"joint enterprise", Alpe d'Huez, Dutch corner, snigger ;-)


----------



## smutchin (25 Jul 2013)

Just out of interest, I looked up some of the other fines from this Tour that didn't get the same level of publicity. Tony Martin, for example, was fined on the first time trial stage for having rainbow stripes on his bike - a clear and deliberate infringement of the rules.

It reminded me of the way Cipollini used to get fined regularly for turning up in non-regulation kit despite repeated warnings from the officials.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> It reminded me of the way Cipollini used to get fined regularly for turning up in non-regulation kit despite repeated warnings from the officials.


But never for dosing himself up on EPO though. Ché sera!


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

As a side issue does this end skodas claim to 10 years supporting the tour without a breakdown ?


----------



## smutchin (25 Jul 2013)

Sky use Jags.

Makes Skoda's ad look like schadenfreude.


----------



## oldroadman (25 Jul 2013)

Reading this thread it could be deduced that a lot of posters have never seen, participated in, officiated, or helped out, at at decent level race. The regulation (for those interested) is no feeding before 50km covered, or in the last 20km. The commissaires may amend this in exceptional circumstances or for mountain top finishes. It's there to stop DS's playing silly B's and coming up all the time in the final which could affect the race in the guise of "feeding". Those on the high moral ground can stay or fall off, the rule is there and so is the sanction. What happened was a clear sanctionable action, and all those involved received the maxiumum penalty. End of. It's called professional decisions and doing what's necessary to defend your position. Simple judgement. The penalty is maximum 20 seconds on overall time, plus SwF 200 per rider and SwF 1,000 on the DS. Which was imposed in this case, with some discussion as to whether Froome should have been penalised, as it was actually Richie Porte who collected the item from the car, and no rule says one team member can't give food to another at any time. But wisely, in my view, Sky took the penalty because it was simply pragmatic and professional.
Despite some of the extreme views, this is not "cheating" in any serious sense, simplly a "misdemeanour" in the context of the more serious offences such as those involving blood manipulation.
As the late Michael Winner might say "Calm down dear"......


----------



## Hont (25 Jul 2013)

What oldroadman said ^.

Just to address the question of because it was deliberate, why was the punishment not more severe (like in football a deliberate handball preventing a goal v the ball hitting the players hand in the middle of the pitch)? There is no provision in the rules for a greater penalty, just as there is no provision in the rules for riders being allowed to feed when bad luck (e.g. their car breaking down) means that they are disadvantaged.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Reading this thread it could be deduced that a lot of posters have never seen, participated in, officiated, or helped out, at at decent level race. The regulation (for those interested) is no feeding before 50km covered, or in the last 20km. The commissaires may amend this in exceptional circumstances or for mountain top finishes. It's there to stop DS's playing silly B's and coming up all the time in the final which could affect the race in the guise of "feeding". Those on the high moral ground can stay or fall off, the rule is there and so is the sanction. What happened was a clear sanctionable action, and all those involved received the maxiumum penalty. End of. It's called professional decisions and doing what's necessary to defend your position. Simple judgement. The penalty is maximum 20 seconds on overall time, plus SwF 200 per rider and SwF 1,000 on the DS. Which was imposed in this case, with some discussion as to whether Froome should have been penalised, as it was actually Richie Porte who collected the item from the car, and no rule says one team member can't give food to another at any time. But wisely, in my view, Sky took the penalty because it was simply pragmatic and professional.
> Despite some of the extreme views, this is not "cheating" in any serious sense, simplly a "misdemeanour" in the context of the more serious offences such as those involving blood manipulation.
> As the late Michael Winner might say "Calm down dear"......


Oh dear your deduction is misplaced and you've spectacularly missed the point, it's not about the rule, it's about the attempt to circumnavigate it after being warned.


----------



## Dave Davenport (25 Jul 2013)

What oldroadman said, plus; the level of sanctions are set at a level to discourage teams infringing them in most circumstances, it's a tactical decision by the team whether they pay the penalty of 20 seconds and a few quid if they think they need to and in no way can be considered 'cheating' IMO.


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Jul 2013)

I'm easy on this issue!

That's a polite way of saying I don't give a toss


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

I wish Froome hadn't done it but I can live with it.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

2566002 said:


> I still don't see the signifcance of the having been warned. It is not as though they didn't know the rule already.


It removes a possible defence that they were ignorant or unsure of the rules. It was a blatant manipulation and only worked because they pretended Froome had a mechanical whereby the Commissaire allowed the Sky car through. If they hadn't lied about that, the car wouldn't have been near enough for Porte to easily get back to.


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> It removes a possible defence that they were ignorant or unsure of the rules. It was a blatant manipulation and only worked because they pretended Froome had a mechanical whereby the Commissaire allowed the Sky car through. If they hadn't lied about that, the car wouldn't have been near enough for Porte to easily get back to.


 
That said, since Froome was in yellow, the Sky car would have been first in the line of the team cars


----------



## oldroadman (25 Jul 2013)

The official car with he leaders was actually race direction, not commissares, though a commissaire may have been on board. The warning may or may not have been audible - when yu are riding through howling fans even radio is a problem. What was done was simply necessary and a professional decision which needed to be made. The consequences were clearly known. It's simply working to the regulations and making a calculation what is the least damaging action to take. Decision taken, sanction applied, all done. Would anyone posting rather that Froome had blown up and lost minutes, and possibly the Tour? If so you are in the camp of "good plucky losers" which was a British trend for many years. We don't do losing now, the professional are in charge. Which is preferable - I know I would always prefer working under a DS who knew how to win, and was prepared to calculatewhat worked best for his team's prospects. That way leads to a decent living. Losers don't get good (if any) contracts in a hard world.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Sky use Jags.
> 
> Makes Skoda's ad look like schadenfreude.


Oops sorry smutchers showing my ignorance again ! FM will be pleased, he must have a lock in on cycling news at the mo'


----------



## Dave Davenport (25 Jul 2013)

I think they spilled liquid into the car's electrics somehow.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Jul 2013)

There's a vaguely reassuring side to this thread: if a naughty gel is the worst accusation that can be levelled against Froome and Sky, then cycling's come a very long way.


----------



## Speicher (25 Jul 2013)

I think the fridge leaked, this caused a short circuit of the vehicle's electrics.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I did,this is just the most public of consistent rule breaking there is no deterant so why bother with them in the first place ?


 
Because they make plenty of money for the UCI - read the Inner Ring article on fines that has been mentioned before.


----------



## smutchin (26 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Because they make plenty of money for the UCI - read the Inner Ring article on fines that has been mentioned before.


 
About 3% of the UCI's total annual income, irc. And that's a not inconsiderable sum.


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Jul 2013)

Did we decide on whether Froome should have his win stripped yet?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Jul 2013)

I just spotted this breakdown of the TdF fines on inrng.

€1,600 of the Movistar fines were for skipping a morning team prize award.
€1,000 of OPQS's was for Tony Martin having the rainbow stripes on his bike.
The only Sky fine was the incident discussed above.


----------



## smutchin (26 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> €1,000 of OPQS's was for Tony Martin having the rainbow stripes on his bike.


 
Wasn't the rest of the OPQS fine for Chavanel "feeding in a way that brings the sport into disrepute" or something equally ludicrous?

(I think this amounts to exactly the same offence as Sky committed.)


----------



## martint235 (26 Jul 2013)

What on earth did Argos get done for? Not clipping in before crossing the start line?


----------



## tigger (26 Jul 2013)

I wonder if the fines have to paid instantly in cash? I can imagine all the riders have a wedge in their back pockets... just incase like


----------



## Hont (26 Jul 2013)

How did Sojasun incur a fine when, for all intents and purposes, they weren't actually at the race?


----------



## tigger (26 Jul 2013)

Hont said:


> How did Sojasun incur a fine when, for all intents and purposes, they weren't actually at the race?


 
I reckon you've answered your own question!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Jul 2013)

Here's what the great Robert Millar says about it:

"I noticed a bit of debate over the penalty for illegal feeding that Team Sky was given but it's equivalent of the professional foul in other sports. Sometimes you've got to do it, so it's no big deal and it's better to take the punishment than have something worse happen."

You know, I think he may just know what he's talking about...


----------



## oldroadman (26 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Here's what the great Robert Millar says about it:
> 
> "I noticed a bit of debate over the penalty for illegal feeding that Team Sky was given but it's equivalent of the professional foul in other sports. Sometimes you've got to do it, so it's no big deal and it's better to take the punishment than have something worse happen."
> 
> You know, I think he may just know what he's talking about...


 I rest my case, a far better man than many of us has confirmed what a professional must sometimes do.

So far as the fines are concerned, it gets taken off total prize money by the organisers and sent to UCI. I have known it that a DS has gone to sort out the money and found he owes the organisers money if the team have a bad race for prizes! In any case TdF money takes months to come through, by which time some will not want to remember how little they won.


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

Right you nobbers, I have decided you all owe me £100 each. Just for replying to this thread without asking me if you could. Paypal is fine for the fine.


----------



## Scoosh (26 Jul 2013)

Seeings how you didn't even start the thread, Noodles ....


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

Scoosh said:


> Seeings how you didn't even start the thread, Noodles ....


 
*I* make the rules! You pay double!


----------



## Strathlubnaig (26 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Here's what the great Robert Millar says about it:
> 
> "I noticed a bit of debate over the penalty for illegal feeding that Team Sky was given but it's equivalent of the professional foul in other sports. Sometimes you've got to do it, so it's no big deal and it's better to take the punishment than have something worse happen."
> 
> You know, I think he may just know what he's talking about...


I was just about to post the same quote, glad I read through the whole thread ! Millar knows his onions.


----------



## perplexed (27 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> What on earth did Argos get done for? Not clipping in before crossing the start line?


 
Being in possession...






Of dubious facial hair.


----------



## oldroadman (27 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> Right you nobbers, I have decided you all owe me £100 each. Just for replying to this thread without asking me if you could. Paypal is fine for the fine.


----------



## BJH (27 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I just spotted this breakdown of the TdF fines on inrng.
> 
> €1,600 of the Movistar fines were for skipping a morning team prize award.
> €1,000 of OPQS's was for Tony Martin having the rainbow stripes on his bike.
> The only Sky fine was the incident discussed above.



So for the people who believe that what Sky did was cheating and they should be kicked out, given that almost every other team had a fine who is th real winner
I will go and check just after I finish sticking pins in my eyes

Rule broken fine paid end if story? Feeding rule is b)(;:cks anyway, even football realises that when it's hot they need to allow drinks and even referees forget the rule regularly about no break in the middle of extra time

It's common sense, what would we prefer to have riders collapsing on extreme hot summit finishes ?

£100 on its way from my cousins bank account in Nigeria as he is a very rich man, please post your account details below in the thread and I will sort it


----------

