This wont be popular...

[lukesdad]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[martint235]

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]

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]

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

 

[thom]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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)