DQ at PR race

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

Quoted message said:

Hi,
Could someone please explain to me the DQ controversy of the 2nd 3rd
and 4th place riders at the PR race?
Thanks

"In second place, somewhat controversially, was Tom Boonen (Quick.Step),
ahead of Alessandro Ballan and Juan Antonio Flecha (Rabobank). The World
Champion actually crossed the line in fifth place, but Leif Hoste, Peter
Van Petegem and Gussev (2nd through 4th) were all disqualified after
ducking through a closed train crossing with 10 km to go. None of them -
even Boonen - were particularly happy with the commissaires' decision."

Phil H

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hi,
Could someone please explain to me the DQ controversy of the 2nd 3rd
and 4th place riders at the PR race?
Thanks

What's to explain? Some riders crossed railroad tracks when they should not
have crossed. A train was coming and they should have waited. So they got
DQed.
-----------
Alex

The problem here is that Hoste, Van Petegem, and Gussev have every
right to protest about Boonen, Ballan, and Flecha also crossing the
tracks when the gates were down. You either apply the rules as written
(all 6 get DQ'd) or you subject it to interpretation and the spirit of
it (Hoste retains 2nd, etc). You can't applies the rules one way to
one group and another way to the other group.

The decision rendered in my opinion was wrong and should be amended by
the UCI.

Alan

On 10 Apr 2006 12:34:47 -0700, "alan_atwood" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem here is that Hoste, Van Petegem, and Gussev have every
right to protest about Boonen, Ballan, and Flecha also crossing the
tracks when the gates were down. You either apply the rules as written
(all 6 get DQ'd) or you subject it to interpretation and the spirit of
it (Hoste retains 2nd, etc). You can't applies the rules one way to
one group and another way to the other group.

The decision rendered in my opinion was wrong and should be amended by
the UCI.

Alan

Dumbass,

This is where it helps to have an understanding of "virtual" results.
For instance, those who argue that Hinc has virtually won many races,
or that LeMond has "virtually" won several tours.

It goes like this:

Because VanPetegem, Gussev, and Hoste (VanGuHoste) crossed in FRONT
of the train, they could have been kilt. Thus, they are virutally
DEAD. Because Boonen et all crossed BEHIND the train, they could NOT
have been virtually killed, unless there was an express coming the
other way (which there wasn't). Now, when you go back to the Tour
1995, and look a the results of the 15th stage, when Casartelli kilt
himself on the descent (OK, so the curb kilt him - whatever). Look at
the results for the stage - Casartelli - DNF, DEAD. So we know that
riders who die during races DNF. Therefore, VanGuHoste could not have
finished, as they were virtually kilt, and therefore, their finish was
virtual, and there placing were also. Money cannot be paid out, and
riders cannont mount the podium (except the virtual one) for vitual
placings. Therefore, the UCI commisares had to bump everyone else up.
Only actual results count. I think that virtually covers it.

SH said:

Because VanPetegem, Gussev, and Hoste (VanGuHoste) crossed in FRONT
of the train, they could have been kilt. Thus, they are virutally

Any Scotsman will tell you that it's what's under the virtual kilt that
counts.

On 10 Apr 2006 12:34:47 -0700, "alan_atwood" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem here is that Hoste, Van Petegem, and Gussev have every
right to protest about Boonen, Ballan, and Flecha also crossing the
tracks when the gates were down. You either apply the rules as written
(all 6 get DQ'd) or you subject it to interpretation and the spirit of
it (Hoste retains 2nd, etc). You can't applies the rules one way to
one group and another way to the other group.

The decision rendered in my opinion was wrong and should be amended by
the UCI.

Alan

Yeah, but why bother? So Boonen got a few more points. Yelling about
being screwed, if that is what you think you were, is fine. Crying
about the people behind you doesn't do anything unless you think it
will get you unscrewed. Boonen didn't DQ Hoste and I don't think
crying about it on Hoste or Van Petegem's part does anything for
anyone.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

SH said:

Quoted message said:

Because VanPetegem, Gussev, and Hoste (VanGuHoste) crossed in FRONT
of the train, they could have been kilt. Thus, they are virutally

Stu Fleming said:

Any Scotsman will tell you that it's what's under the virtual kilt that
counts.

One of these:
http://www.vrinnovations.com/index3.htm

Quoted message said:

Because VanPetegem, Gussev, and Hoste (VanGuHoste) crossed in FRONT
of the train, they could have been kilt. Thus, they are virutally
DEAD. Because Boonen et all crossed BEHIND the train, they could NOT
have been virtually killed, unless there was an express coming the
other way (which there wasn't).

Which brings up an interesting point. Looking at the photos, it appears that
this is a two-track crossing. With all the attention paid the the train
coming from the one direction, it's possible (not likely) that one might not
be aware of a train coming from the other direction.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

On 10 Apr 2006 12:34:47 -0700, "alan_atwood" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem here is that Hoste, Van Petegem, and Gussev have every
right to protest about Boonen, Ballan, and Flecha also crossing the
tracks when the gates were down. You either apply the rules as written
(all 6 get DQ'd) or you subject it to interpretation and the spirit of
it (Hoste retains 2nd, etc). You can't applies the rules one way to
one group and another way to the other group.

The decision rendered in my opinion was wrong and should be amended by
the UCI.

Alan

Dumbass,

This is where it helps to have an understanding of "virtual" results.
For instance, those who argue that Hinc has virtually won many races,
or that LeMond has "virtually" won several tours.

It goes like this:

Because VanPetegem, Gussev, and Hoste (VanGuHoste) crossed in FRONT
of the train, they could have been kilt. Thus, they are virutally
DEAD. Because Boonen et all crossed BEHIND the train, they could NOT
have been virtually killed, unless there was an express coming the
other way (which there wasn't). Now, when you go back to the Tour
1995, and look a the results of the 15th stage, when Casartelli kilt
himself on the descent (OK, so the curb kilt him - whatever). Look at
the results for the stage - Casartelli - DNF, DEAD. So we know that
riders who die during races DNF. Therefore, VanGuHoste could not have
finished, as they were virtually kilt, and therefore, their finish was
virtual, and there placing were also. Money cannot be paid out, and
riders cannont mount the podium (except the virtual one) for vitual
placings. Therefore, the UCI commisares had to bump everyone else up.
Only actual results count. I think that virtually covers it.

Dairy Queen fielded a team at Paris-Roubaix? Huh! Who knew!

Mark