Cavendish Doesn't Deserve Green

From what I've gathered of watching Tour de France coverage Cavendish hasn't broken any rules... The race organizers extend the elimination time if 20% of the total riders arrive outside the that time. Both times Cavendish has arrived outside the elimination time it's been in a group of 80ish riders I believe, so well over 20%. They do get penalized points in the green jersey competition as well.

Also, second time he arrived outside the elimination time, so did Rojas.

I agree with the sentiment. If any rider is outside the time limit they should be eliminated.

I'll qualify that by saying if the rider is impeded (by a spectator/car/stray dog etc) that should be the only reason why he shouldn't be eliminated.

Quoted post said:

89 of 168 riders, didn't make it to the top within the time limit. They could have been eliminated, but the race jury exercised its option of keeping them in the race.

All of them should have been eliminated, the time limit rule shouldn't be a grey area; outside the limit = go home.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by steve [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

All of them should have been eliminated, the time limit rule shouldn't be a grey area; outside the limit = go home.

Right on Steve.

And I quite like all the race coverage that's gone up here - thanks for that.

Cav is an awesome sprinter, but I don't have a lot of respect for him. Saw one stage where he was in 166th place, and he had to have teammates around him to get him in. Pretty lame.

Hi

Interesting views. If they are going to kick out 80 odd riders then do you seriously think there will be sprinters teams there next year? Why would the bother? It would seriously undermine the character of the Tour in my view. Sprinters are not mountain climbers and vice versa ... it should be fair for all. I personally would hate to not see the likes of HTC there.

@rcloviere That is pretty harsh ... the team is there mainly for Cavendish, it is a sprinters team after all so it is quite proper for the team to drop back to bring him forward, no? I would expect the same for Cadel, Contador and so on if the situation arose.

Andrew

Time gaps simply don't work. That's why they don't enforce them. Especially on short, sharp, brutal climbs like stage 19.

Maybe eliminate the last 5% of the remaining field each day. That would certainly add another race within the race.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Aushiker [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Hi

Interesting views. If they are going to kick out 80 odd riders then do you seriously think there will be sprinters teams there next year? Why would the bother? It would seriously undermine the character of the Tour in my view. Sprinters are not mountain climbers and vice versa ... it should be fair for all. I personally would hate to not see the likes of HTC there.

@rcloviere That is pretty harsh ... the team is there mainly for Cavendish, it is a sprinters team after all so it is quite proper for the team to drop back to bring him forward, no? I would expect the same for Cadel, Contador and so on if the situation arose.

Andrew

Of course the sprinter teams would be there next year. The thing is, all they have to do is enforce their rules once and then the following year they won't have to. Either that, or change the rule - before the race begins, not during.

Yeah, probably was too harsh on Cavendish; however, by winning all of these sprint stages, he may well become one of the greatest tour riders. It just seems a shame that he could be thought of that way, but can't even make time cutoffs without a great deal of help from his team

It would be impractical to eliminate 80 riders from the race for finishing outside the time limit. However, it might not be a bad idea to let them continue, but make them ineligible for the jersey prizes. Cavendish could still race for stage wins, but wouldn't be eligible for the green jersey after failing to ride within a time limit. Another approach would be to dock the riders points for finishing outside a time limit.

I think Cavendish is an outstanding athlete, but watching him harvest all those sprinter points while finishing over 3 hours behind the yellow jersey seems wrong somehow.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Scott2468 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Time gaps simply don't work. That's why they don't enforce them. Especially on short, sharp, brutal climbs like stage 19.

Maybe eliminate the last 5% of the remaining field each day. That would certainly add another race within the race.

Now this idea gets my vote. That would be a fantastic way to keep people glued to the race until the very end, and keep the competitors honest each and every day...In track racing there's the 'Elimination' or 'Devil takes the hindmost' race, this would be great to employ in road cycling...

Basically an engineered issue created by race management and course selection. In celebration of 100 years in the Alps, the two stages were designed to be exceedingly challenging and playground for the elite climbers, but with no thought to the impact upon nearly 40% of the peloton who's specialty is not high climbs. These riders are not chumps who don't belong at the TdF- they are slill some of the elite riders in the world. Only 55 riders finished stage 18 within 30 minutes of AS. The cutoff was set by rules at 33 minutes. +/- a few seconds. Riders like Rojas, Leipheimer, Voigt, Hincapie, Kreuziger, and Dean made it with less than 2 minutes to spare.

Greiple, Delage, Cancellara, Goss, Van Garderen, Petacchi, Millar, Martin, Flecha, Hushovd, LL Sanchez, Gilbert, Sabatini, Boasson Hagen, Swift, Farrar, Casar, Hinualt, Roy, Ventoso, and more finsihed in the pack with Cav at a little more than 2 min over. That basically wipes out the chances for the top 20 competing for the green jersey and even a couple of riders in the top 30's overall.

Want an excuse to reintroduce doping practices .... design and set expectations so that 40% of the most elite riders in the world fail because of a manufactured issue. That or take sprinting and non-climbing competitions out of the TdF and focus strictly on endurance and climbing. To anyone who says they should "just ride a little harder" ... pfft, yeah right. Those two stages and the way they were run were brutal and definitely separated the great from the good, but there was no chaff.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by sitzmark [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Want an excuse to reintroduce doping practices .... design and set expectations so that 40% of the most elite riders in the world fail because of a manufactured issue. That or take sprinting and non-climbing competitions out of the TdF and focus strictly on endurance and climbing. To anyone who says they should "just ride a little harder" ... pfft, yeah right. Those two stages and the way they were run were brutal and definitely separated the great from the good, but there was no chaff.

A bit dramatic, but that aside...

40% of the peloton "failed" those two stages because they knew that if they all stuck together all of them wouldn't get thrown out. I can almost guarantee that there was alot of soft pedaling (relatively speaking) going by a bunch of those in the lagging group - simply saving energy for latter stages. They figured beforehand that the time limit exception would be invoked to keep them in the race regardless if they were over the limit or not. They simply played the game correctly to the disadvantage of those that indeed made the cut-off.

As previously suggested above, simply drop the last 5% every day. There'd be some honest effort undoubtedly...

Why penalize the sprinters on an intentionally amped up climber's stage? The high mountains are always tough on the sprinters - this past course even more so. Build that into the planning/rules. Hushovd killed the mid mountains, but was hammered on stage 18. Maybe he was "coasting" but I doubt it - his character doesn't strike me as being like that.

Prudhomme has already hinted at a more mid-mountain focus in upcoming TdFs now that the "100 in the Alps" has passed. It wasn't "fair" that a rider or two were cut for time reasons prior to the high-climbs rather than being afforded the same point-penalty option as those on stage 18/19. Again, poor planning and management. As long as the stages are relatively evenly represented - then cutting the last 5% doesn't "pre-select" a specific cycling skill. and adds another component to the strategy. However, amping up 1-2 mountain stages is a pretty sure bet for nullifying 16 or so stages of sprinting success.

The sprinters knew the course before the race started, did they not? Suppose they could've opted out on the TdF if they thought it was too hard.

Definitely, rules should be applied uniformly. These discretionary exceptions do indeed stink.

Quoted post said:

The sprinters knew the course before the race started, did they not? Suppose they could've opted out on the TdF if they thought it was too hard.

They did and they do.

Now that Cav has his green jersey, he (and/or others) may go back to capturing sprint points up to the high hills and then bug out before expending the effort in the Alps just to get cut anyway. This year was a bit of an anomaly because 18 and 19 were especially difficult, but even in prior years sprinters have "opted out", leaving the Champs sprint and green jersey to someone else - possibly with far fewer points. Kinda leaves everyone with a hollow feeling.

There's already an adjustment made for difficulty of a stage. Wouldn't have been that hard to make an additional categorization adjustment when amping up the hill stages for the 100 year celebration and take the issue off the table. But they didn't and invoked the 20% rule instead. C'est la vie...

I like the suggestion to eliminate riders from jersey competition if they fail to make the cut. In practice, this would only affect the green jersey.

Now - how to get our great ideas to the Tour folks............

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by tonyzackery [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
A bit dramatic, but that aside...
40% of the peloton "failed" those two stages because they knew that if they all stuck together all of them wouldn't get thrown out. I can almost guarantee that there was alot of soft pedaling (relatively speaking) going by a bunch of those in the lagging group - simply saving energy for latter stages. They figured beforehand that the time limit exception would be invoked to keep them in the race regardless if they were over the limit or not. They simply played the game correctly to the disadvantage of those that indeed made the cut-off.
As previously suggested above, simply drop the last 5% every day. There'd be some honest effort undoubtedly...

as someone who continually reminds others of your status of having "been in the fishbowl" i'd think you'd have a bit more generosity on this issue when it concerns the team concept. sitzmark makes the case quite well concerning with what the tour spectacle is meant to dazzle and it isn't tossing quite a few of the names out just because they finish outside the cut off. what is particularly strange is that you cite this cut off time as though it were rigidly enforced in years gone by and honoured more in the breach of recent vintage. and as for dropping the five percent everyday, let's not change the nature of the competition. were this just the test of the strongest rider, h desgrange would have dropped the concept of team play from the start.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

as someone who continually reminds others of your status of having "been in the fishbowl" i'd think you'd have a bit more generosity on this issue when it concerns the team concept. sitzmark makes the case quite well concerning with what the tour spectacle is meant to dazzle and it isn't tossing quite a few of the names out just because they finish outside the cut off. what is particularly strange is that you cite this cut off time as though it were rigidly enforced in years gone by and honoured more in the breach of recent vintage. and as for dropping the five percent everyday, let's not change the nature of the competition. were this just the test of the strongest rider, h desgrange would have dropped the concept of team play from the start.

LOL! Someone with an obvious axe to grind...My opinion has been stated; no reason (for me that is) to reiterate for your understanding or to request your agreement/approval.
Sitzmark can engage his battles (for lack of a better term) - I'm sure...speak on your own merit, or lack thereof...
Furthermore, the strawman (bolded) you're attempting to pick at is quite impotent with no address from me required...
Lastly, don't hate the player - hate the game...if necessary, I can help you with a translation[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]