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:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"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 Kunich said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"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

Dan Connelly said:

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.

Diablo Scott said:

Dan Connelly said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Diablo Scott said:

Dan Connelly said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

On Feb 20, 9:40 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Diablo Scott said:

Dan Connelly said:

The decision to neutralize circuits should have been made BEFORE the
race. It's fairly obvious 11 turns per lap is a problem.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Scott said:

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

On Feb 20, 9:55 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

from cyclingnews.com:

Quoted message said:

"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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Scott said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Feb 20, 10:13 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Scott said:

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.

On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

bjorn said:

On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

On 20 Feb 2007 10:55:27 -0800, "bjorn" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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...

bjorn said:

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

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"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.

bjorn said:

On Feb 20, 9:33 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

KC said:

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.

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bjorn said:

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.