Giro d'Italia 2017 **spoilers**

[roadrash]

More should probably be done, but you're never going to completely stop them causing collisions as long as they're on the same roads, so it needs clear definition of what should happen next. Otherwise, enjoy the farces.

I didn't see any farce yesterday, I saw a motorbike and cyclists involved in a collision , A clear decision was made by the race director, and that was ....carry on .

you said
How would Movistar feel? Tough shoot. They're going to benefit enough anyway from Thomas and colleagues having road rash and bruises and stuff. The only thing Sky were doing wrong was riding next to Sunweb instead of further forward.

why do you think it ok to say tough shoot to movistar and force them to stop rather than tough shoot to sky and race carry on , its a race, stuff happens (I was hoping that Thomas would do well by the way).

 

[mjr]

why do you think it ok to say tough shoot to movistar and force them to stop rather than tough shoot to sky and race carry on , its a race, stuff happens (I was hoping that Thomas would do well by the way).

So because it's a race, is it OK when race vehicles knock down several contenders and basically end their chances of winning?

I think it would be better to say tough shoot to the uninjured Movistar instead of the injured Sky and Orica-Scott because adding a few situations where it's required to red-flag the race following race vehicle incidents would increase the pressure from all teams on race organisers to sort this recurring problem out, rather than maybe allowing them to think that only 3 or 4 teams out of 20 suffer and they like those odds.

Does anyone have a transcript of Ashley's post-stage interview with the Movistar DS? I didn't catch all of it (due to dubbing), didn't record it and can't find it online. Maybe someone with a E* player can find it?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Are motorbike incidents getting more common? They seem to be to me, but I have the memory of a goldfish.

 

[roadrash]

So because it's a race, is it OK when race vehicles knock down several contenders and basically end their chances of winning?

now your just being silly, no it isn't ok , if you bothered to read my posts you would see that i stated the exact opposite. As for race organisers liking those odds as you put it , do you honestly think that statement is true.

you said
If some sort of regulation isn't introduced to handle race vehicle collisions then I fear we're likely to see a return to the mad situation of twenty teams all trying to ride on the front any time anything sensitive may happen. That happening into finishes was what led to the 3km flat finish rule being introduced

teams already do race to be at the front , if they know of a pinch point, dangerous corner , etc, its all part of bike racing, it wouldn't be much of a race if they all just pootled along just in case something may happen would it,

 

[Buddfox]

So because it's a race, is it OK when race vehicles knock down several contenders and basically end their chances of winning?

now your just being silly, no it isn't ok , if you bothered to read my posts you would see that i stated the exact opposite. As for race organisers liking those odds as you put it , do you honestly think that statement is true.

you said
If some sort of regulation isn't introduced to handle race vehicle collisions then I fear we're likely to see a return to the mad situation of twenty teams all trying to ride on the front any time anything sensitive may happen. That happening into finishes was what led to the 3km flat finish rule being introduced

teams already do race to be at the front , if they know of a pinch point, dangerous corner , etc, its all part of bike racing, it wouldn't be much of a race if they all just pootled along just in case something may happen would it,

I think the critical point is in your last paragraph: "if they know of a pinch point, dangerous corner..." and this is the critical difference in this case. There was no reason for the motorbike rider to have stopped on the road. If they needed to stop, they could easily have pulled onto the grass verge, where there was space. Any outrider with a modicum of common sense and training would realise the hazard they presented where they stopped. And there is no reason that the peloton should have been expecting there to be a hazard at that point. So I don't buy the criticism of the SunWeb rider either.

There's a reason why they put people in bright orange jackets waving bright yellow flags on street furniture - because in a fast moving peloton it's impossible (yes, actually impossible) to avoid a last minute hazard like this, without some kind of advanced warning. That there was a hazard in the road was entirely the fault of the race organisers - and they should have reacted accordingly. Neutralising the race was surely the right option here. I want to see the world's best racers given the opportunity to compete on an even playing field - and this clearly wasn't that. Is it really any different to the Tour stage where Froome lost his bike, and they neutralised the result?

 

[roadrash]

That there was a hazard in the road was entirely the fault of the race organisers

it wasn't the fault of the race organisers , the blame lies with the dozy twonk in control of the motorbike.

i understand the comparison with the froome incident, but where would you draw the line as far as what should or shouldn't result in the race being neutralised ,with regard to the froome incident do you think they would have neutralised that stage if it was a rider way down the classification involved instead of froome .

 

[mjr]

That there was a hazard in the road was entirely the fault of the race organisers

it wasn't the fault of the race organisers , the blame lies with the dozy twonk in control of the motorbike.

i understand the comparison with the froome incident, but where would you draw the line as far as what should or shouldn't result in the race being neutralised ,with regard to the froome incident do you think they would have neutralised that stage if it was a rider way down the classification involved instead of froome .

Who knows? Thomas and Yates weren't riders way down the classification, though. Just not as famous as Froome. Does anyone want that criteria? That the race stops only if the GC rider is famous enough?

The race organizers agreed to the "dozy twonk in control of the motorbike" being on the course, so it is also their fault.

 

[Buddfox]

It wasn't a member of the public, it was a police officer. Ultimately all the vehicles on the road are answerable to the race organisers, so the organisers have to treat it the same. Same with TV cars, camera motorbikes, commissaires vehicles etc

You draw the line where the incident has a clear impact or potential impact on the race outcome. Thomas was second on GC, Yates a team lead, Landa a team co-lead.

But as a cynic, I'd bet the Giro organisers don't mind because it wasn't an Italian. If it had been Nibali I bet they would have stopped it. The Italians have form in this area.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I don't think you can write regulations for this kind of incident. You'd end up with either a ludicrous unworkable regulation, or stages getting neutralised with monotonous regularity, or both. What about when Jonny Hoogerland and Juan Antonio Flecha got taken out by a car? They were in a break and up for a stage win, and Voeckler, who was also in the break, ended up taking yellow - should that have been neutralised? I think that would have been a very silly decision indeed.

The incident last year involving Froome was a one off reaction to an incident involving a rider with a big media profile. With hindsight it may have been something of an overreaction as he would have been back in yellow a couple of days later after the ITT anyway IIRC.

Edit: And you can't always distinguish between incidents due to race vehicles and those due to the public. IIRC The Froome incident happened because a bike had to brake because the public were blocking the route (due to the top section being closed and all the spectators concentrating in a smaller area).

 

[roadrash]

^^^^ agree with this^^^^^
@mjr

The race organizers agreed to the "dozy twonk in control of the motorbike" being on the course, so it is also their fault.

I think i would be correct in saying that, even if they agreed to the twonk being on the course it wasn't agreed by the race organisers for the twonk to stop where he did,

Who knows? Thomas and Yates weren't riders way down the classification, though. Just not as famous as Froome. Does anyone want that criteria? That the race stops only if the GC rider is famous enough?

that is exactly my point, no it should not be like that, it should be same rule for all, but as dogtrousers has pointed out, it isnt

 

[brommers]

Who knows? Thomas and Yates weren't riders way down the classification, though. Just not as famous as Froome. Does anyone want that criteria? That the race stops only if the GC rider is famous enough?

Nibali???

 

[smutchin]

I'm with @Dogtrousers on this - it would be impossible to write a workable rule that fits every situation. Better to concentrate their efforts on trying to prevent these incidents happening in the first place.

IMO, they made the right call yesterday.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Thomas would have lost loads of time anyway...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Thomas would have lost loads of time anyway...

I was looking at yesterday's racing as being a matter of G minimising his losses and thought that Yates would probably end up higher than him in the GC at the end of the day. I hadn't reckoned, though, for the police being out to maximise both their losses....

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I was looking at yesterday's racing as being a matter of G minimising his losses and thought that Yates would probably end up higher than him in the GC at the end of the day. I hadn't reckoned, though, for the police being out to maximise both their losses....

Bloody foreign rozzers, what are they like, eh?