| |
Main
Date: 20 Feb 2007 14:29:01
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"If you were with Levi, you get the winner's time. If not, you're on your own..."
Hmmm...
Dan
P.S. The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 13:42:02
From: rick-paulos@uiowa.edu
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
There was a quote by some team manager of some rule that states if 60%
of the field crashes...
I looked up the UCI rule book on road racing and didn't see anything
of the sort. Maybe he was refering to some TOC specific rule in the
race bible which I haven't seen. Or perhaps its some domestic ngb
rule from that managers country. I've notice many get confused by the
different sets of rules that can apply.
In any case it looks like it took a couple of days to adjust it.
First only counting those riders with levi, then expanding it to all
in the main group.
I did find the following in the UCI rules that pretty much says the
promoter and head official can do what ever they want:
Race incidents
2=2E2.029 In case of an accident or incident that could impinge upon the
normal conduct of a race in general or
a particular stage thereof, race director may, after obtaining the
agreement of the commissaires'
panel and having informed the timekeepers, at any moment, decide:
=B7 to modify the course,
=B7 to temporarily neutralise the race or stage,
=B7 to declare a stage null and void,
=B7 to cancel part of a stage as well as the results of any possible
intermediate classifications and to
restart the stage near the place of the incident,
=B7 to let the results stand or
=B7 to restart the race or stage, taking account of the gaps recorded at
the moment of the incident.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:35:53
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Feb 20, 7:16 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 9:40 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Diablo Scott wrote:
>
> >>>Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> >>>>The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
> >>>>race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>
> >>>11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
>
> >>2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than traffic islands in Europe.
>
> >>>Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
> >>>corners had nothing to do with it.
>
> >>Another good point.
>
> >>Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
>
> >>Dan
>
> > from cyclingnews.com:
>
> > "Due to the crash and the large number of riders that went down in the
> > crash, our panel of commisaires made a decision to award all the
> > riders with the time of the winner," said race director Jim Birrell.
> > "I think it was a fair decision and the right decision." When asked
> > who initiated the discussion about making the change from the UCI
> > regulation, Birrell said it was the chief commissaire.
>
> > Seems like they did give the same time to everyone, not just Levi's
> > group. Plus, it looks like it was the commissaire, not anyone
> > affiliated with the promotion of the event, who initiated the ruling,
> > which sort of puts a damper on those folks who think there's an
> > inherent evil plot for Levi to win at all costs.
>
> This is corrupt. Decisions shouldn't be made based on some subjective
> opinion of "fairness." The rules are the rules. There is no rule that
> says if you crash outside the 3km, you get the winner's time. You don't
> see the NFL officials saying that the guy who fumbled on accident will
> get the touchdown because that's "fair."
>
> This is an embarrassment to the sport when officials violate the rules.
> The officials are there to enforce the rules, not make up new rules
> that aren't on the books.
>
> What's fair is the rules, not rules that don't exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm split on this. The CR approved the course, including the finishing
circuits as safe, but when they crashed he changes his judgement and
extends the zone.
If they thought it was hazardous then they should've made a ruling
that the time entering the circuit wwas the one you got, and sprint
for bonus time and the win, if not they shouldn't have changed the
rule.
IMO the worst situation is changing the rules in the middle of the
game.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 10:55:27
From: bjorn
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > Frankly, I think they should've either 1) neutralized the finishing
> > laps before the start of the stage and taken everyone's time coming
> > into the first circuit, or 2) given everyone their true elapsed
> > time. The crash was clearly well outside the 3k buffer zone.
>
> Agreed:
>
> Either:
> 1. the finish was an extraordinary crash risk, and it should have been neutralized before the race.
> 2. the finish is relatively safe, and the crash was consistent with the 3km rule, which was set at
> 3km, and not 10km, based on rational reasoning.
>
> There was no unforseeable risk, as the weather conditions were perfect.
>
> (1), certainly the following finishing circuits should be neutralized. I believe every mass-start point-to-point stage has them.
>From what I heard the crash happened because of the center line
reflectors. I guess those aren't common in Europe - been here too long
so I don't even remember... (and I certainly never liked them in
crits...)
Levi did say sth like "they would never put such a finish in a Euro
race. I disagree with that, it already was pointed out that the
roundabouts in France are dangerous and mass crashes in the last km
aren't unheard of.
I do think the rule was altered so that everyone in Levi's group got
the same time. So people like Ciolek, who crashed at the same time,
but came in later did not receive the same time (although somebody
suggested that Ciolek actually caused the crash, in which case maybe
he was just punished for that :)
bjorn
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:09:58
From: KC
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
bjorn wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> Frankly, I think they should've either 1) neutralized the finishing
>>> laps before the start of the stage and taken everyone's time coming
>>> into the first circuit, or 2) given everyone their true elapsed
>>> time. The crash was clearly well outside the 3k buffer zone.
>> Agreed:
>>
>> Either:
>> 1. the finish was an extraordinary crash risk, and it should have been neutralized before the race.
>> 2. the finish is relatively safe, and the crash was consistent with the 3km rule, which was set at
>> 3km, and not 10km, based on rational reasoning.
>>
>> There was no unforseeable risk, as the weather conditions were perfect.
>>
>> (1), certainly the following finishing circuits should be neutralized. I believe every mass-start point-to-point stage has them.
>
>
>>From what I heard the crash happened because of the center line
> reflectors. I guess those aren't common in Europe - been here too long
> so I don't even remember... (and I certainly never liked them in
> crits...)
>
> Levi did say sth like "they would never put such a finish in a Euro
> race. I disagree with that, it already was pointed out that the
> roundabouts in France are dangerous and mass crashes in the last km
> aren't unheard of.
>
> I do think the rule was altered so that everyone in Levi's group got
> the same time. So people like Ciolek, who crashed at the same time,
> but came in later did not receive the same time (although somebody
> suggested that Ciolek actually caused the crash, in which case maybe
> he was just punished for that :)
>
> bjorn
>
From the velonews live update for today's stage:
quote:
"10:42 AM Yesterday's ruling
By now you know about the crash that happened about 9km from the
finish yesterday. It took down about half the field, including race
leader Levi Leipheimer, who ultimately lost about 40 seconds to the
stage winners.
Upon review, race officils declared that the finishing circuit in
Santa Rosa would be treated as neutral, giving everyone in the field the
time (as far as the GC is concerned) they had as the first crossed into
town, but before the three trips around the 4.7km circuit. The result is
that Leipheimer keeps the jersey. Had the usual 3km cut-off applied,
today's leader would be Ben Jacques-Maynes (Priority Health)."
/quote
Seems pretty clear. If you were behind as the leaders crossed into
town, your time reflected that.
But this still doesn't reflect Ciolek's time at 523 sec's back. Weird.
-Kieran
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:17:03
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
KC wrote:
> Seems pretty clear. If you were behind as the leaders crossed into
> town, your time reflected that.
>
> But this still doesn't reflect Ciolek's time at 523 sec's back. Weird.
>
> -Kieran
My guess is the standings have been adjusted from what is posted
on-line, consistent with the verbal decision.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:32:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o.c_o_m > wrote in message
news:jzJCh.65114$wc5.45952@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> KC wrote:
>
>> Seems pretty clear. If you were behind as the leaders crossed into town,
>> your time reflected that.
>>
>> But this still doesn't reflect Ciolek's time at 523 sec's back. Weird.
>>
>> -Kieran
>
> My guess is the standings have been adjusted from what is posted on-line,
> consistent with the verbal decision.
I believe you're probably correct there Dan.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 03:17:28
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o.c_o_m> wrote in message
> news:jzJCh.65114$wc5.45952@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> KC wrote:
>>
>>> Seems pretty clear. If you were behind as the leaders crossed into town,
>>> your time reflected that.
>>>
>>> But this still doesn't reflect Ciolek's time at 523 sec's back. Weird.
>>>
>>> -Kieran
>> My guess is the standings have been adjusted from what is posted on-line,
>> consistent with the verbal decision.
>
> I believe you're probably correct there Dan.
>
>
Look at stage 2 GC -- this is in fact what happened. Chris Horner and Ciolek
are restored to their proper GC positions.
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:39:51
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
bjorn wrote:
> it already was pointed out that the
> roundabouts in France are dangerous
They are?! I don't think so. Can't remember a field crash on a roundabout.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 18:16:52
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:39:51 +0100, Ewoud Dronkert
<firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote:
>bjorn wrote:
>> it already was pointed out that the
>> roundabouts in France are dangerous
>
>They are?! I don't think so. Can't remember a field crash on a roundabout.
Not quite as big, but I remember a crash early in a Tour of France in
the late 1990s or early 2000s where a bunch of guys rode into the side
of a roundabout and Laurent Jalabert lost his yellow jersey.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:31:32
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:45db5c9f$0$338$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> bjorn wrote:
>> it already was pointed out that the
>> roundabouts in France are dangerous
>
> They are?! I don't think so. Can't remember a field crash on a roundabout.
ED!!!! I have some tour de france tapes with Eric Zabel involved in a crash
on a roundabout in the final kilometers. I think that O'Grady was in the
same mess.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 14:56:59
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On 20 Feb 2007 10:55:27 -0800, "bjorn" <procyclingpress@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Levi did say sth like "they would never put such a finish in a Euro
>race.
Isn't that what Eric Vanderaerden said in, uh, sometime around 1990?
Its always the course...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:16:26
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
bjorn wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> Frankly, I think they should've either 1) neutralized the finishing
>>> laps before the start of the stage and taken everyone's time coming
>>> into the first circuit, or 2) given everyone their true elapsed
>>> time. The crash was clearly well outside the 3k buffer zone.
>> Agreed:
>>
>> Either:
>> 1. the finish was an extraordinary crash risk, and it should have been neutralized before the race.
>> 2. the finish is relatively safe, and the crash was consistent with the 3km rule, which was set at
>> 3km, and not 10km, based on rational reasoning.
>>
>> There was no unforseeable risk, as the weather conditions were perfect.
>>
>> (1), certainly the following finishing circuits should be neutralized. I believe every mass-start point-to-point stage has them.
>
>
>>From what I heard the crash happened because of the center line
> reflectors. I guess those aren't common in Europe - been here too long
> so I don't even remember... (and I certainly never liked them in
> crits...)
>
> Levi did say sth like "they would never put such a finish in a Euro
> race. I disagree with that, it already was pointed out that the
> roundabouts in France are dangerous and mass crashes in the last km
> aren't unheard of.
>
> I do think the rule was altered so that everyone in Levi's group got
> the same time. So people like Ciolek, who crashed at the same time,
> but came in later did not receive the same time (although somebody
> suggested that Ciolek actually caused the crash, in which case maybe
> he was just punished for that :)
>
> bjorn
>
I'm not sure I buy the Bott's dots story - looking at the photos they
were pretty far from the centerline. They do put reflectors in other
locations though - like near fire hydrants.
The difference between this and a roundabout is that with all the
barriers here, there was no way for a rider to grab his bike and run
around the pile-up to get going again. A crash that should have caused
a 10 second split wound up causing a 90 second split.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 23:00:13
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Diablo Scott wrote:
> I'm not sure I buy the Bott's dots story - looking at the photos they
> were pretty far from the centerline. They do put reflectors in other
> locations though - like near fire hydrants.
http://www.onemillionrevolutions.org/tick/black.php?img=images/gallery/20070220023920455500.jpg
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:19:13
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> Diablo Scott wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I buy the Bott's dots story - looking at the photos they
>> were pretty far from the centerline. They do put reflectors in other
>> locations though - like near fire hydrants.
> http://www.onemillionrevolutions.org/tick/black.php?img=images/gallery/20070220023920455500.jpg
>
Wow, that's quite a different perspective from this shot.
http://tinyurl.com/2aezuu
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:04:57
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"Diablo Scott" <DiabloScottNOSPAM@terra.es > wrote in message
news:45db81d6$0$25922$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> Diablo Scott wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I buy the Bott's dots story - looking at the photos they
>>> were pretty far from the centerline. They do put reflectors in other
>>> locations though - like near fire hydrants.
>> http://www.onemillionrevolutions.org/tick/black.php?img=images/gallery/20070220023920455500.jpg
>
> Wow, that's quite a different perspective from this shot.
> http://tinyurl.com/2aezuu
Have you ever ran over those things before? I have at speed and they are
pretty nasty devices for a bicycle. On the other hand they sure make driving
a lot safer.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 09:26:09
From: Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Feb 20, 10:13 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > My guess (key word: guess) is that everyone who came into the
> > finishing circuits together got the same time. Those who didn't
> > weren't with the group when the crash occurred, and therefore they got
> > their normal finishing time.
>
> > If you were already 2 or 3 minutes or more off the back, you wouldn't
> > expect to get the same time as those with the lead group when the
> > crash occurred.
>
> This guess is incorrect. Consider, for example, Robert Ciolek, or initiated the crash. The pact was to a much larger degree intact at the point of
> the crash.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
hmmmm.... then I'm not sure what to guess they were up to. Maybe they
gave the same time to everyone who chased like hell to get back on,
but didn't give the same time to those who didn't.
Frankly, I think they should've either 1) neutralized the finishing
laps before the start of the stage and taken everyone's time coming
into the first circuit, or 2) given everyone their true elapsed
time. The crash was clearly well outside the 3k buffer zone.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 17:33:27
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Scott wrote:
> Frankly, I think they should've either 1) neutralized the finishing
> laps before the start of the stage and taken everyone's time coming
> into the first circuit, or 2) given everyone their true elapsed
> time. The crash was clearly well outside the 3k buffer zone.
>
Agreed:
Either:
1. the finish was an extraordinary crash risk, and it should have been neutralized before the race.
2. the finish is relatively safe, and the crash was consistent with the 3km rule, which was set at
3km, and not 10km, based on rational reasoning.
There was no unforseeable risk, as the weather conditions were perfect.
If (1), certainly the following finishing circuits should be neutralized. I believe every mass-start point-to-point stage has them.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 08:59:31
From: Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Feb 20, 9:55 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > from cyclingnews.com:
>
> > "Due to the crash and the large number of riders that went down in the
> > crash, our panel of commisaires made a decision to award all the
> > riders with the time of the winner," said race director Jim Birrell.
> > "I think it was a fair decision and the right decision." When asked
> > who initiated the discussion about making the change from the UCI
> > regulation, Birrell said it was the chief commissaire.
>
> > Seems like they did give the same time to everyone, not just Levi's
> > group. Plus, it looks like it was the commissaire, not anyone
> > affiliated with the promotion of the event, who initiated the ruling,
> > which sort of puts a damper on those folks who think there's an
> > inherent evil plot for Levi to win at all costs.
>
> The quote is inconsistent with the currently posted "official" results.http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/race-live/standings/stage1.html
>
> Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My guess (key word: guess) is that everyone who came into the
finishing circuits together got the same time. Those who didn't
weren't with the group when the crash occurred, and therefore they got
their normal finishing time.
If you were already 2 or 3 minutes or more off the back, you wouldn't
expect to get the same time as those with the lead group when the
crash occurred.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 09:13:02
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Scott wrote:
> My guess (key word: guess) is that everyone who came into the
> finishing circuits together got the same time. Those who didn't
> weren't with the group when the crash occurred, and therefore they got
> their normal finishing time.
>
> If you were already 2 or 3 minutes or more off the back, you wouldn't
> expect to get the same time as those with the lead group when the
> crash occurred.
This guess is incorrect. Consider, for example, Robert Ciolek, or initiated the crash. The pact was to a much larger degree intact at the point of
the crash.
Dan
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 08:45:41
From: Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
On Feb 20, 9:40 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Diablo Scott wrote:
> > Dan Connelly wrote:
> >> The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
> >> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>
> > 11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
>
> 2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than traffic islands in Europe.
>
>
>
> > Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
> > corners had nothing to do with it.
>
> Another good point.
>
> Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
>
> Dan
from cyclingnews.com:
"Due to the crash and the large number of riders that went down in the
crash, our panel of commisaires made a decision to award all the
riders with the time of the winner," said race director Jim Birrell.
"I think it was a fair decision and the right decision." When asked
who initiated the discussion about making the change from the UCI
regulation, Birrell said it was the chief commissaire.
Seems like they did give the same time to everyone, not just Levi's
group. Plus, it looks like it was the commissaire, not anyone
affiliated with the promotion of the event, who initiated the ruling,
which sort of puts a damper on those folks who think there's an
inherent evil plot for Levi to win at all costs.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 19:16:46
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Scott wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:40 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>
>>Diablo Scott wrote:
>>
>>>Dan Connelly wrote:
>>>
>>>>The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
>>>>race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>>
>>>11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
>>
>>2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than traffic islands in Europe.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
>>>corners had nothing to do with it.
>>
>>Another good point.
>>
>>Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
>>
>>Dan
>
>
> from cyclingnews.com:
>
> "Due to the crash and the large number of riders that went down in the
> crash, our panel of commisaires made a decision to award all the
> riders with the time of the winner," said race director Jim Birrell.
> "I think it was a fair decision and the right decision." When asked
> who initiated the discussion about making the change from the UCI
> regulation, Birrell said it was the chief commissaire.
>
> Seems like they did give the same time to everyone, not just Levi's
> group. Plus, it looks like it was the commissaire, not anyone
> affiliated with the promotion of the event, who initiated the ruling,
> which sort of puts a damper on those folks who think there's an
> inherent evil plot for Levi to win at all costs.
>
This is corrupt. Decisions shouldn't be made based on some subjective
opinion of "fairness." The rules are the rules. There is no rule that
says if you crash outside the 3km, you get the winner's time. You don't
see the NFL officials saying that the guy who fumbled on accident will
get the touchdown because that's "fair."
This is an embarrassment to the sport when officials violate the rules.
The officials are there to enforce the rules, not make up new rules
that aren't on the books.
What's fair is the rules, not rules that don't exist.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 22:05:19
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> This is corrupt. Decisions shouldn't be made based on some subjective
> opinion of "fairness." The rules are the rules. There is no rule that
> says if you crash outside the 3km, you get the winner's time. You don't
> see the NFL officials saying that the guy who fumbled on accident will
> get the touchdown because that's "fair."
>
> This is an embarrassment to the sport when officials violate the rules.
> The officials are there to enforce the rules, not make up new rules
> that aren't on the books.
>
> What's fair is the rules, not rules that don't exist.
>
>
Well, hopefully this crooked race won't get ProTour status.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 08:55:50
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Scott wrote:
> from cyclingnews.com:
>
> "Due to the crash and the large number of riders that went down in the
> crash, our panel of commisaires made a decision to award all the
> riders with the time of the winner," said race director Jim Birrell.
> "I think it was a fair decision and the right decision." When asked
> who initiated the discussion about making the change from the UCI
> regulation, Birrell said it was the chief commissaire.
>
> Seems like they did give the same time to everyone, not just Levi's
> group. Plus, it looks like it was the commissaire, not anyone
> affiliated with the promotion of the event, who initiated the ruling,
> which sort of puts a damper on those folks who think there's an
> inherent evil plot for Levi to win at all costs.
>
The quote is inconsistent with the currently posted "official" results.
http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/race-live/standings/stage1.html
Dan
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 08:33:35
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE
> the race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
corners had nothing to do with it.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:44:37
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Diablo Scott wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
>> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>
> 11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than traffic islands in Europe.
>
> Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
> corners had nothing to do with it.
Another good point.
Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:38:00
From: xzzy
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
stage times for each group should have been taken when the race turned off
the road course and onto the first of the 3 laps.
hitting only one of those white things used to make the lane lines in the
street isn't too bad, but if you hit several inline it can knock your hands
off the bars and/or cause you to be moved abruptly and unexpectedly left or
right.
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:VzFCh.29575$yC5.19852@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Diablo Scott wrote:
>> Dan Connelly wrote:
>>> The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
>>> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>>
>> 11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
>
> 2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than
> traffic islands in Europe.
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
>> corners had nothing to do with it.
>
> Another good point.
>
> Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's
> group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
>
> Dan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:40:29
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Diablo Scott wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
>> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>
> 11 turns in 3 miles... unnecessary but hardly a criterium course.
2.3 turns per kilometer -- okay, good point. Probably no worse than traffic islands in Europe.
>
> Anyway, the crash happened in the straight section near the finish line,
> corners had nothing to do with it.
Another good point.
Neverthless, I hope they fix the problem of "neutralizing" only Levi's group. The whole pack should receive the winner's time.
Dan
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:04:03
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:NADCh.26021$zH1.1320@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> "If you were with Levi, you get the winner's time. If not, you're on your
> own..."
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Dan
>
> P.S. The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
How nice of you to know everything about running a tour before hand.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:15:47
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
> news:NADCh.26021$zH1.1320@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> "If you were with Levi, you get the winner's time. If not, you're on your
>> own..."
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> P.S. The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
>> race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>
> How nice of you to know everything about running a tour before hand.
>
Tom:
With all respect, when have you ever shown any reluctance to "know about" anything? :)
In this case, there is a century of precedence on the consequences of tight finishing circuits.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:07:10
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:T8FCh.29562$yC5.10302@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>> news:NADCh.26021$zH1.1320@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "If you were with Levi, you get the winner's time. If not, you're on
>>> your own..."
>>>
>>> P.S. The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE
>>> the race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.
>>
>> How nice of you to know everything about running a tour before hand.
>
> Tom:
>
> With all respect, when have you ever shown any reluctance to "know about"
> anything? :)
> In this case, there is a century of precedence on the consequences of
> tight finishing circuits.
Dan, do you really believe that the Tour of California organizers have a
century of experience? Geez, cut them some slack. The Tour de France
finishes are all screwed up about 1/3rd of the time because they go for the
town which will pay the most and not the town that has the best finishing
straight.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:09:33
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: TOC decision on stage 1
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> The Tour de France finishes are all screwed up about 1/3rd of the time
> because they go for the town which will pay the most and not the town that
> has the best finishing straight.
Which is exactly the same as the ATOC.
k
http://cofanelli.blogspot.com
|
|
