This wont be popular...

[rich p]

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]

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

 

[smutchin]

Sky use Jags.

Makes Skoda's ad look like schadenfreude.

 

[oldroadman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm easy on this issue!

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

 

[rich p]

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

 

[rich p]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

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.