... the rule is clear. Hold on to a car and gain any kind of advantage, out you go...
[holding onto the car] doesn't [become a disqualification matter] if the car isn't moving faster than everyone else. There are some things that happen in races that sensible commissaires simply don't see, because although technical offences, they do nothing to alter the outcome of the race.
I think that's probably what I'm thinking, in that these two positions are inconsistent. That isn't a go at you, just thinking about the inconsistencies and perhaps injustices that can creep in when turning blind eyes. It's always difficult to know what will and won't affect the outcome of a race.
I'm not disagreeing and think both decisions were correct. The point I was making was that, given the high profile nature of Nibble's DQ, the commissaires might have felt under greater pressure to punish similar infractions, even though the degree of offence was far lower.
I think Nibbles' offence was judged to be holding on to the car, while Bouhanni's was a sticky bottle offence for which the penalties are much lower, and don't include elimination.
Great sprint by Ewan yesterday. Sagan can console himself with the thought that at least he didn't come second. That uphill looked a bit of a killer - they all seemed to be running out of legs.
Thinking particularly about Sagan's comments about yesterday's and the previous day's finishes, it really surprises me that in these days of (supposedly) more professionalism and marginal gains, riders still often don't seem to know the detail of crucial parts of stages.