The Prophet crushes fools on the way to the Tre Chime in the '68 Giro
This is the most exciting thing that’s happened in Cycling since April. Yes, that’s a full two weeks with nothing exciting happening and its been killing me. I know its been killing you, too.
I love the Giro, the master alchemist of bad weather and big mountains that keeps the racing exciting from the first day through the last. You can generally count on enough climbing in the first week to see the leadership bounce around like one of those singing ping pong balls on Sesame Street. The race has its fair share of provenance as well, with many a legendary battle fought between legendary riders.
This year’s race is also remarkable for the fact that a GC rider is not only racing both the Giro and the Tour, but for Contador’s publicly stated objective of doing the Giro-Tour double, a feat not matched since Pantani crushed it back in 1998. That is an awesome goal, I just wish it was a goal set forth by a rider I could get enthusiastic about. A quick scan of the start list has me wondering who is made of the same stuff Bertie, and I’m coming up short. Uran Uran and Pozzovivo are the standouts; and I have serious doubts about Porte being able to come up with the goods, not to mention my boy Ryder who, despite having actually won the Giro, does not inspire confidence in his ability to repeat the feat. It is looking like energy bars may be Contador’s biggest rival for the title, like in last year’s Tour.
Now that I’ve given you three paragraphs of useless drivel that you’ve probably already skipped over, I feel comfortable getting down to Road Tacks. This is the Giro, people, lots of points at stake. And those points are going towards amazing prizes including a Jaeger frame and a Café Roubaix wheelset. There is plenty of time for you to Delgado the thing, too, so my advice is that you avoid doing that. Give yourself enough time to enter your picks so if something has gone amuck, you have time to hit “reload” or come back V minutes later to try again before the event closes. Remember, your procrastination in this matter will not result in the only Keeper with database skills diving into the backend to enter your picks for you. (And if you do encounter a problem, please be so kind as to take a screenshot and upload it as the descriptor “it didn’t work” doesn’t help us debug the problem.)
The scoring for the Grand Tours is a tad more involved than the one-day races, so look them over before making your prognostications. (One of the best things about the VSP is that I usually get to use the word “prognostication”, an opportunity one should always relish.)
So get your picks in before the countdown clock goes to zero, hit the go button, and good luck.
[vsp_results id=”32941″/]
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
It's a shitty rule and its application is even shittier but I reckon Porte will be in fifth by close of play on Saturday.
And if Rigoberto can make up two minutes or there abouts on Aru...
@dyalander
interesting, I wonder where the commisaires were when Hendo rode the last approach to Willunga Hill with his hand up Jacky Bobby's arse & then gave him a madison sling up the hill during Stage 5 of this year's TDU?
https://youtu.be/D9BNKYOjyK8?t=1m26s
Also interesting seeing the official Giro twitter feed from overnight...
What they did makes it the best sport in the world, but still deserves a penalty...
@dyalander
The Giro organisers quoted 12.1.040 - http://twitter.com/giroditalia/status/600730617756721155
@wiscot
Just don't ask Pantani.
I'm not sure it's about Aru - I can understand the speculation in that direction because there is precedent, but I suspect this instance says more about the Italian take on bureaucracy than it does about some sort of nationalistic application of the rules to favour Aru.
More generally, the rule is pretty clear and the commissars shouldn't be debating whether its a good or bad rule - they should just enforce it. I don't buy the argument I'm seeing around the interwebs suggesting that given the inconsistent application of the rules to now this rule should also have been left unenforced. Rail at the times when a rule was incorrectly ignored - not at the time when it was correctly enforced. I'd also suggest the comparison to the sticky bidon or the use of the convoy after a mechanical is also spurious.
@Harminator
Nope, but the UCI states that the penalty applies to each rider involved.
@Mikael Liddy
My source was the 2014 rules so I'm not 100% sure if the numbering is current - but they probably just tweeted/enforced the wrong rule knowing there is a specific rule in there somewhere about precisely this sort of incident - remember - they're acting fairly quickly and there's a lot going on - they're not just calmly considering this one thing in isolation with all the time in the world - in the end, while doesn't reflect well on the commissars, to my mind it doesn't change the fact that under the rules as they stand a penalty is justified.
That said, I can see the argument that it's not a great rule and that it's unfortunate that it was enforced, but that's not to say the commissars have done the wrong thing (other than the whole wrong rule thing - if you're going to be a stickler for the rules you've got to go all in!). Clearly the intent of the rule is to dissuade teams from picking and choosing who they assist thereby creating unfair advantages and taking the alliances on the road borne out of race situations to a whole different level, where they're made in a broader context (nationalistic, commercial, whatever) rather than in the context of a race (if we're both going to give ourselves a chance to win we both need to get on the front and pull). I can understand why there's a rule like this trying to limit those alliances to be within a race - but clearly that's not exactly what was going on here - clearly selective assistance was rendered - I doubt Clarke would have done this for just anyone - in particular I doubt he'd have done it for Aru or Contador - but nor would he only have done it for Porte, or Sky, or a fellow Aussie. I'm guessing he'd have done it for any of his mates in the peleton. So it's not about Orica and Sky ganging up as teams. In addition - it's not that effective a rule - clearly there are instances when nationalism comes into play - how many times have spanish teams collunded in the vuelta - not for in-race mutual benefit but for wider-context nationalistic reasons? Moreover - is i this even such a bad thing? There's an argument that this just adds interest and that in the end alliances will come and go and cycling's politics is just as much part of the sport as the athletic prowess of the riders. That's why I can understand the sentiment of people who say they should just let it go - it doesn't match the intent of the rule even though it does match the wording.
But, I disagree that the commissars should be left to judge on intent - the wording of the rules should be clear and should be enforced as such - if it's unclear or crap - fix the wording.
@dyalander
all good, this is what's current on the UCI site, and if you search for 12.1.040 it includes "non regulation assistance to other riders" and details that the penalties apply to each rider involved.
I'd suggest the source of the anger around this is two-fold. Firstly, the UCI commisaires are happy to look the other way in regards to this in other circumstances (see youtube link above), and secondly, a 2 minute penalty that has such an artificial effect on the outcome of the race seems so out of proportion to the act itself, an act that has been (rightly) praised by every single person who I've seen comment on it.
@dyalander
regarding your last point on the commisaires not judging intent, or taking context in to account when applying penalties, this is something they regularly do when it comes to riders finishing outside time limits.
I think 12.1.040 is just the table of infringements the regulation itself is 2.3.012. But again, I'm no fancy big city lawyer.
@Mikael Liddy
Is time limit really about intent though? Isn't it a qualitative judgement of the stage - some stages are harder in the context of the race and so the judges have scope to incorporate this. Regardless - I see your point - there's already scope for more qualitative judgement - but I still wouldn't be comfortable with having commissars judge the intent of assistance rendered (goodwill or unholy alliance) so they either need a rule or need to have no rule and just let it play out.
Also, while I agree there is a lack of proportion in this instance and that it's a shame the rule punishes what was a commendable act on the face of it - I think it's telling that Contador and Aru haven't commented as far as I know.
You could argue, as some do, that it would be unfair to Astana and Tinkov, who have spent energy protecting Contador and Aru for Sky to ride the good will of Clarke. Personally, I'd disagree - the relationships team and individuals build should be part of their arsenal - and perhaps the energy and 43 seconds would have been a fair enough loss for Sky to cop for a bit of bad luck and not having someone on hand to send Clarke on his way and provide legal assistance - but I guess I'm just saying that while it's true that the rider's commentary does reflect a problem with the rule as it stands, there is also an small element of perspective in these comments - those commenting are not directly affected. If they were, I suspect the integrity of the rules would become a little more important.
I love this stuff - I know it bores a lot of people so if you're one those people you'd already know to just skip my posts.