This wont be popular...

[lukesdad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

W

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[smutchin]

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.