Lance's shortcut.

Callistus Valerius said:

Is it legal to take a shortcut through the fields a la cyclocross?

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

--
David N. Welton Consulting: dedasys.comdedasys.comOpen ↗ Personal: dedasys.comdavidwOpen ↗ Free
Software: dedasys.comfreesoftwareOpen ↗ Apache Tcl: tcl.apache.orgtcl.apache.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

Google's language tools translate "Lance Armstrong" as "Armstrong the Nozzle" 🙂

Babblefish calls him "Spear Armstrong"

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

Google's language tools translate "Lance Armstrong" as "Armstrong the Nozzle" 🙂

In article <[email hidden]>,

Callistus Valerius said:

Is it legal to take a shortcut through the fields a la cyclocross?

He also lost ground on it too.

David N. Welton said:

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

He also lost time and position during the incident so it's not like the shortcut helped him in any
way other than avoiding a crash.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

Zeno

Callistus Valerius said:

Is it legal to take a shortcut through the fields a la cyclocross?

Quoted message said:

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did cheat, but not intentionally, is
that correct?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Callistus Valer
> I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did cheat, but not intentionally, is
that correct?

I think the ruling is much like the George Brett (baseball player with the Royals) who had pine tar above the legal height on the bat. It was a big mess, but the commisioners office reversed the ruling because Brett clearly wasn;t trying to cheat...even though he technically broke a rule...Does cheating require intent though?

Callistus Valerius said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did cheat, but not intentionally,
is that correct?

Correct. The intention is what counts, not the type of action, in and of itself. If Armstrong had
whipped a mountain bike off the team car and cut cross country, slicing down 16 switch backs to come
out 5 minutes ahead of the bunch --THAT would have been a cheat. He did not go flying off the road
to avoid Beloki because he wanted to gain time.

Here is how Bernard Thévenet put it today on the TDF web site.

"L'image du jour est "le cyclo-cross" d'Armstrong pour éviter de tomber avec Beloki. Normalement, un
coureur n'a pas le droit de le faire. Mais vu les circonstances, on ne peut pas le pénaliser. Il
peut y avoir pénalité quand le coureur cherche volontairment à frauder. Là, Armstrong a des
circonstances atténuantes."

Zeno

"Bill Davidson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S7GQa.29$He.5@fed1read03...

Quoted message said:

David N. Welton said:

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

He also lost time and position during the incident so it's not like the shortcut helped him in any
way other than avoiding a crash.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

He should have had to chase. Instead he popped right back in the same group. He did benefit, so that
was a generous decision.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did

cheat,

Quoted message said:

but not intentionally, is that correct?

Let me parse your response. "I don't like Armstrong and will take pot shots whenever I get a chance
and I will even invent opportunities".

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nick Burns said:

"Bill Davidson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S7GQa.29$He.5@fed1read03...

Quoted message said:

David N. Welton said:

Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional
circumstances':

it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

He also lost time and position during the incident so it's not like the shortcut helped him in
any way other than avoiding a crash.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

He should have had to chase. Instead he popped right back in the same group. He did benefit, so
that was a generous decision.

This strikes me as a "force majeure" situation (French for "things went all haywire"😉. Basically,
Lance experienced technical difficulties caused by the actions or misfortune of others. He avoided
in a way designed to maximise safety (his own and Beloki's), without thought of gaining advantage.

When he was able to safely return to the course of the race, he had gained no advantage on other
riders as a result of his "shortcut", so it was only natural to rule that it was an exceptional
circumstance.

And now we know why Lance goes out and does those cross races in Texas.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nick Burns said:

"Bill Davidson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S7GQa.29$He.5@fed1read03...

Quoted message said:

David N. Welton wrote:
> Theoretically, no, although the jury said it was ok because of the 'exceptional
> circumstances':
>
> it.sports.yahoo.com2dbim.htmlOpen ↗

He also lost time and position during the incident so it's not like the shortcut helped him in
any way other than avoiding a crash.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

He should have had to chase. Instead he popped right back in the same

group.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He did benefit, so that was a generous decision.

This strikes me as a "force majeure" situation (French for "things went all haywire"😉.

Basically, Lance experienced technical difficulties

Quoted message said:

caused by the actions or misfortune of others. He avoided in a way designed to maximise safety
(his own and Beloki's), without thought of gaining advantage.

When he was able to safely return to the course of the race, he had gained no advantage on other
riders as a result of his "shortcut", so it was only natural to rule that it was an exceptional
circumstance.

And now we know why Lance goes out and does those cross races in Texas.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Come on! As if Lance planned this! "Lance was so smart to rehearse all possible scenarios..." If he
loses this Tour, how many of his tifosi will claim he "gifted" it to someone?

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

Quoted message said:

Is it legal to take a shortcut through the fields a la cyclocross?

As opposed to riding over, or crashing into, a seriously injured rider?

I'd say that sounds pretty accurate....

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally

cheat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did

cheat,

Quoted message said:

but not intentionally, is that correct?

Let me parse your response. "I don't like Armstrong and will take pot

shots

Quoted message said:

whenever I get a chance and I will even invent opportunities".

Actually, he didn't cheat. In order to cheat you have to break rules, and AFAIK, the "judges"
or whomever they are are the final arbiters of what breaks a rule and what doesn't, and they
said its OK.

And if you notice, he went backwards quite a ways on the switchback. He could have taken a different
angle and cut even more off the switchback, but he basically continued in his original course.

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

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the ruling was based on the fact he did't intentionally cheat --it was circumstntial

let me parse your response. "did't intentionally cheat" but he did cheat, but not
intentionally, is that correct?

Correct. The intention is what counts, not the type of action, in and of itself. If Armstrong had
whipped a mountain bike off the team car and cut cross country, slicing down 16 switch backs to
come out 5 minutes ahead of the bunch --THAT would have been a cheat. He did not go flying off the
road to avoid Beloki because he wanted to gain time.

Here is how Bernard Thévenet put it today on the TDF web site.

"L'image du jour est "le cyclo-cross" d'Armstrong pour éviter de tomber avec Beloki. Normalement,
un coureur n'a pas le droit de le faire. Mais vu les circonstances, on ne peut pas le pénaliser.
Il peut y avoir pénalité quand le coureur cherche volontairment à frauder. Là, Armstrong a des
circonstances atténuantes."

Zeno

"KBH" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:1058243569.159372@sj-nntpcache-3...

Quoted message said:

And if you notice, he went backwards quite a ways on the switchback. He could have taken a
different angle and cut even more off the switchback,

but

Quoted message said:

he basically continued in his original course.

He couldn't, there was a banner blocking the access to the road, and he had to go around. By the
way, he almost got whole group crashing into him when he poped back in the road! Nevertheless don't
get me wrong, he doesn't deserve a penalty.

I don't understand how the race officials decided that Lance's shortcut *didn't* benefit him.

Of course it benefitted him. If he hadn't used the shortcut, if he had stayed on the race course, it
would have had a negative impact on his race. He might have crashed with Beloki. He would have had
to chase to get back to the field. He might have lost time.

It's my opinion that the race officials made the decision they did because he's Lance. If that had
been Zumeldia or Ivan Basso or whoever who went through the field, they'd have had a small time
penalty or at least a small fine.

Not to say it wasn't a creative -- and memorable -- move, but I still think it was cheating.

Joanne

Tom Paterson said:

He was ahead of the group before the excursion, joined at the rear, with no momentum. Penalty
sufficient for a mishap that was not of his making.

What a queer and biased way of reasoning! Let me recount it differently.

Beloki and Armstrong were ahead of the group, they were faster, perhaps both taking too many risks.
Beloki paid duty and Armstrong was lucky not to, and lucky he could avoid the crash. Also skillful
to decide to go into the field. Lucky not to find a ditch, not to run into an electric wire keeping
cattle on the pasture, lucky not to ... [fill in].

At that point he decided he might try a different course, though the rule would have required him to
climb up back to the road. He was skillful to choose an appropriate, not too steep, sloping line.
Lucky to find it doable. Lucky again to find a narrow ditch to bridge with a jump.

Was he unlucky? Not at all.

Did he benefit from his maneuvers instead of regaining the exit point? Of course yes.

So, some benevolent penalty would have been more appropriate without hurting His Majesty's
feelings a bit.

Sergio Pisa