Tour de France 2016 - SPOILERS

[belgiangoth]

I disagree with the commissaries' decision. As it was not a flat stage the 3k rule does not apply, he crashed he should not get a bye on this. Molema was in the same crash and got there before him, why should Molema not get a better time than Porte and Froome, who he beat to the line? Giving Froome the same time as the group behind him might just have been okay, but even then: crashes are part of cycling, fans are part of cycling, htfu. Merckx got punched by a fan, there are at least three examples of a dead certain win being foiled by a crash with a fan or photographer, those results were left unchanged, why now with Froome?

[Postboxer]

Maybe because the crash wasn't with a spectator, it was with a camera motorbike, which kind of is the race organisers fault, even if it was forced to stop by a spectator.

Interesting new technique by Froome today though. There must be a gradient at which it becomes quicker.

[Postboxer]

Also, if you let fans decide the result like that, some may start doing such things deliberately. Especially if they have money on it.

[rualexander]

As I understand it, ignoring Froomeys perambulating escapades, as the crash was within the last 3k he gets the winners time. I know people are going to be discussing this for a while though!

3km rule doesn't apply on a mountain finish stage.
But they came up with something similar in this case to resolve the issue.

[Spinners]

The officials got it right. Also Quintana and Valverde did not uphold the best traditions of the tour.

[belgiangoth]

Maybe because the crash wasn't with a spectator, it was with a camera motorbike, which kind of is the race organisers fault, even if it was forced to stop by a spectator.

Interesting new technique by Froome today though. There must be a gradient at which it becomes quicker.

Did they not notice the motorbike in front of them, were they riding too close, were they getting in the slipstream?

Had it happened to the front three riders in the breakaway they wouldn't have given the win to someone who crashed and the peloton would not have stopped for them to get a new bike. At that point in the race there were time gaps, the peloton stops for crashes at times, but not the breakaway and not when the race is split like that. Accidents happen in cycling and not always the riders fault, but you just have to suck it up ... Unless you're the yellow jersey wearer for some reason. Even if they had decided to mitigate for the crash they could have given him Porte's time, why give him Molema's when the guy clearly just rode better than the other two? Unbelievable that he gained time on everyone for crashing (because he did gain time on his rivals).

Das ist beschauert.

[Postboxer]

You want them to slow down because they've got close to the motorbike in front of them? Would make for very strange racing wouldn't it? Anyway Froome says he was also hit by a following motorbike, did they not see the motorbike in front of them, or the three cyclists, one of whom was wearing a bright yellow jersey, were they following too close?

What about Adam Yates the other day? They adjusted his time because the 1km banner collapsed right in front of him, is that his fault too?

What should they do about the crowds? They somehow need to preserve at least a three bike width in the road, maybe some kind of bouncy castle snowplough? With side fences extending back a little, keep everyone out of the way, apart from that devil guy.

[mjr]

Didi the devil has more sense than to get in the way.

Merckx getting punched was a travesty, not something to aspire to.

The commissaires' decision today was correct.

[Si]

Maybe because the crash wasn't with a spectator, it was with a camera motorbike, which kind of is the race organisers fault, even if it was forced to stop by a spectator.

Interesting new technique by Froome today though. There must be a gradient at which it becomes quicker.

Did they not notice the motorbike in front of them, were they riding too close, were they getting in the slipstream?

Had it happened to the front three riders in the breakaway they wouldn't have given the win to someone who crashed and the peloton would not have stopped for them to get a new bike. At that point in the race there were time gaps, the peloton stops for crashes at times, but not the breakaway and not when the race is split like that. Accidents happen in cycling and not always the riders fault, but you just have to suck it up ... Unless you're the yellow jersey wearer for some reason. Even if they had decided to mitigate for the crash they could have given him Porte's time, why give him Molema's when the guy clearly just rode better than the other two? Unbelievable that he gained time on everyone for crashing (because he did gain time on his rivals).

Das ist beschauert.

IF they did what you said then Yates would be in yellow. Only problem with that is that they have already imposed an emergency 3km rule when Yates was hit by the 1km arch. Thus what you propose would actually be penalising Froome because he is in yellow when they have already changed the rules to help a rider who wasn't in yellow. As it is Froome and Porte are still penalised as their advantage over the rest was reduced.

And did Mollema ride better than them...there is no evidence for this - he hadn't managed to get away from them, in fact he was at the back when the crash happened....for all we know he had overcooked in his bid to catch them. He was just lucky tht he was able to extricate himself from the crash quicker and that his bike wasn't unridable.

IF they'd let it stand then it potentially sets a dangerous precedent. Any fan who doesn't like the rider at the front can just stand in front of him, knock him off, and the rider has not way of appealing.

[pjclinch]

I'd say the decision was about "least worst" possible, though nit-picking a little the hold up behind the crash got an allowance for that where Mollema didn't, but it's impossible to be completely fair.

But I think Adam Yates' comment to the effect that he wouldn't really have wanted Yellow if they'd given it to him says a lot. You want to beat your competition fair and square if you can, but while e.g. Porte's early race puncture disaster is just one of those things, his being brought down by what amounts to crowd muppetry while leading out a significant GC move is quite another, and a flat tyre in 200 km of hot racing is one thing, but a frame broken by a race moto is also quite another.

It's a shame... but it's one stage out of lots. Let's see what the TT brings (Go Tom D!)

Pete.

[honesty]

As I understand it, ignoring Froomeys perambulating escapades, as the crash was within the last 3k he gets the winners time. I know people are going to be discussing this for a while though!

3km rule doesn't apply on a mountain finish stage.
But they came up with something similar in this case to resolve the issue.

I was not aware they made that differentiation on mountain stages. Whats the logic for that?

[[XAP]Bob]

Because a fake mechanical or deliberate crash after you bonk should not be a valid tactic.

In this case the crash was not a racing crash - in Froome's case a following motorbike broke his frame...

This was not a good result, but it was the least bad result.
I wonder how much it was exacerbated by the 6km shortening of the route - the crowds were compressed...

[mjr]

3km rule doesn't apply on a mountain finish stage.
But they came up with something similar in this case to resolve the issue.

I was not aware they made that differentiation on mountain stages. Whats the logic for that?

Mountain-top finishes aren't sprints and the 3km (originally 1km) rule was introduced to try to discourage teams from trying to keep their General Classification competitors ahead of the sprinters in an attempt to avoid any crashes caused as the sprinters start to gallop and their lead-out riders drop back burnt-out. However, the current practice of noticing one-second splits in the peloton and nothing smaller means that the GC riders now effectively sprint to follow the sprinters, which isn't all that much better. They probably need to switch to taking sprint-stage GC groupings at something like 1km, so if the whole peloton is together then, they all get the same time, give-or-take the podium bonuses.

[honesty]

Because a fake mechanical or deliberate crash after you bonk should not be a valid tactic.

In this case the crash was not a racing crash - in Froome's case a following motorbike broke his frame...

This was not a good result, but it was the least bad result.
I wonder how much it was exacerbated by the 6km shortening of the route - the crowds were compressed...

Makes sense. They really need to do something about the crowds. It's been getting worse as far as I can see in the last few years. I would think compressing them down by 6k probably didnt help on this day, but even so they need to barrier these iconic climbs better.

[mjr]

I would think compressing them down by 6k probably didnt help on this day, but even so they need to barrier these iconic climbs better.

I think they know that. https://mobile.twitter.com/petercossins ... 5886869504 says that the needed barriers were stranded higher up the mountain by the weather. If you saw Chris Boardman on TV walking unsteadily while holding his (admittedly lightweight) bike that the wind was flapping around like a wobbleboard, then I think you can appreciate the impossibility of moving barriers around in those conditions. I also expect that ASO hires enough barriers for such a major mountain finish to cause supply problems that would hinder them getting many more.

It may be more likely that they could move/recruit a load more marshals if a finish is moved at short notice in future - say average 1.5m a marshal, one each side of the road, that's about 1300 marshals per kilometre... no, I'm not sure that will work