Did Ullrich wait for Lance on Luz Ardiden?
- Thread starter Beastt
- Start date
I never mentioned about Lance Armstrong being behind Jan Ullrich in any of my messages.
If you READ what I posted, I discussed the time checks from when Armstrong passed Chavanel (LA was 1min 20sec ahead of JU when LA passed Chavanel).
From that 1min 20sec lead - with 6kms to go to the top of Luz -
Ullrich pulled back 35 secs.
This was to rebutt your contention that Ullrich was tired that day.
If Ullrich had been tired that day - LA would have increased further his lead from 1min 20secs with 6kms to go.
No, let's take this a little bit further. Let's say, for you conspiracy buffs out there (you seem to like conspiracies) that Beloki's crash was deliberate and designed to eliminate the then 4 time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong. Perhaps he made a deal with someone to crash when he would most likely eliminate Lance. I know this sounds far fetched, and I don't believe it myself, but it is possible. The reason why I bring this up is because I think you are wrong about the rule that the rider must always complete the entire course, even in the case where doing so would clearly result in a crash. If it really is true, all a rider who does not stand to win must do to eliminate the leader for his team (or another's) is to crash right in front of him. Maybe he could take a million dollars or so and take a dive. Certainly his team (or another's which is the beneficiary of the mishap) would make a whole lot more money than 1 million, counting all endorsements and publicity, if it wins. The scoundrel and the conspiring team would make a huge profit. So there you go. This isn't as simple as you think, is it?
You said that Jan was ahead of Lance after he crashed. You said that the gap was something like 1 45. If you didn't, and I'm not going to go back and read all of this little details, let's just approximate. We both agree that Lance was down the hill from Jan after the crash. You say that Jan's maintaining his tempo and not crashing meant that he was waiting. Fine, but Jan was gaining time there. Lance on the other hand crashed again right after his first crash. I think he may have been behind about 2 minutes at that point. So when you add the 2 minutes he was back to the 120 you say he gained on Ullrich AFTER he passed him, the total he gained on Jan is then 2 + 120 or 3 20 at that point. Then he gave back 35 seconds. So overall, Lance gained 2:45 on Jan after he crashed (3:20 minus the 35 he gave back near the end). What's hard about this math?
Your theory is not beyond belief.
But I don't think Beloki deliberately crashed (look at how much it has disrupted everything : his pelvis was badly injured - the man
hasn't been the same since).
The rule is if a cyclist leaves the course - he must re-enter the course from the point where he left it.
So LA avoiding Beloki comes down an embankment.
According to the rules, LA should have been required to go back to the point from where he left the course.
This would have meant LA either having to walk back up the embankment or he would have had to cycle back, uphill, on the tarmac to the point where he left the course.
Having to do this would have required :LA would have
to use up valuable time in trying to get back to the point where he left the course.
Deliberately taking out the leader ?
I don't think that this was the issue in this case - nor do i think that I would like to see LA or anyone else suffer at the hands of such a strategy.
I'd like to see the official rules on this one. I bet there is an exception when the distance of the detour to avoid imminent danger is small, as it was in this case. If we are not privy to the rules, all we can do is conjecture. I was a bit surprised that no one discussed the rules or the exception on OLN at the time. They played and replayed and replayed Lance's deft move to avoid Beloki, but they didn't discuss the technical rule there. Perhaps they figure the average cycling fan is not interested in such technicalities. I certainly am.
As for Beloki taking a fall deliberately, I don't believe it. I would be more inclined to believe, if a rogue team were to resort to such tactics, that they wouldn't have used such a key man. There are plenty of riders who will not make the top 10. Why ruin a contender, if even he is only competing for top 5 or better? On the other hand, a million bucks for a non contender pays for a lot of pelvic surgery with plenty left over for vacations and mai tais. Let's hope this never happens. People will start talking like they do for boxing matches: "The fight was fixed."
I heard on CBS's weekly recap that the "Judges" (race officials, I suppose) decided that Lance's avoiding of Beloki was necessary, and that there wasn't any other way for him to (safely) avoid Beloki. Thus, they didn't penalize him for going off the course.
Fortunately, the race officials are not. On the contrary, judging by the swiftness of the decision, they were far more interested in using common sense when interpreting the situation with respect to the intended purpose of the rule instead of becoming bogged down in obfuscating technicalities. I have the 12 hour DVD set. In the video, the race official goes on camera and explains the situation, the ruling, and the reasons for the ruling. The riders, teams, and officials were all satisfied with it.
The problem with not taking this to the general public, except in a limited dvd form, is that you get people like Limerickman saying that Lance cheated. It seems that discussing the technicalities would only take a minute or two, and would remove doubts in the minds of some.
By the way, do you remember the technical rule and how they interpreted it? Was this an exception or was this particular event clearly illustrated in the text of the rules and not an exception?
You've missed the point.
Armstrong did not follow the designated route (forget that he didn't look back to see how Beloki was or, heaven forbid, wait in case he wasn't badly injured and could still ride).
Ask yourself what would have happened if a rider way down in the GC had taken a different route. Time penalty? Disqualification?
Go back a few years when there was breakaway in the mountains that meant that the peleton (including the yellow jersey) finished outside the time limit. They bent the rules so they were not retired from the race.
They have different rules for high profile riders.
Armstrong did not follow the designated route (forget that he didn't look back to see how Beloki was or, heaven forbid, wait in case he wasn't badly injured and could still ride).
Ask yourself what would have happened if a rider way down in the GC had taken a different route. Time penalty? Disqualification?
Go back a few years when there was breakaway in the mountains that meant that the peleton (including the yellow jersey) finished outside the time limit. They bent the rules so they were not retired from the race.
They have different rules for high profile riders.
The obvious rule was that a rider cannot deviate from the specified road course. No one seemed to be burying their face in the book and befuddling themselves with technicalities. An official simply stated for the record (on camera) that after reviewing the footage, it was obvious that LA took the only path he could to avoid sharing Beloki's fate, it had no impact on the race otherwise, and the race officials judged it accordingly.
I bet there's some kind of official rule in there somewhere about swerving off course to avoid a crash. Let's say for example that the peloton is completely crashed all the way across the road, bodies lying everywhere, and you come flying around the corner and see them there. You're on the flats. Instead of riding over the top of them like the others do, you swerve and ride into the field and then back onto the course after you pass the pileup. Are you now in violation? You have not gone the course. In fact, you have gone farther. Maybe someone else knows the official rule on this.
Can you imagine how many times this must have happened since the race originated more than 100 years ago? This is not some kind of fluke or once in a lifetime occurrence. I think this happens often enough to have some kind of official wording in the rules stating exactly what a rider is expected to do in the event of swerving off course TO AVOID A CRASH. I'm not talking about looking ahead, seeing riders going around a corner and then concluding that it would be shorter to cut through a dirt path as a shortcut to gain time when there is no hazard in the way. I'm talking about swerving to avoid an impending disaster.
Does anyone know the official rules on this? Maybe someone actually has seen the official rules that Tour officials are familiar with. They of course would not have to look carefully into these rules during the race. They have them in their heads, like school kids have disaster drills trained into them from all the drills they hear when the fire alarm goes off. They don't have to look at a rule book when it happens. All this learning is done when the panic is not occurring. This is why they can react without looking deeply into a set of fire regulations (or Tour fine print).
Every time this type of event happens, Tour officials will have to make an instant judgment. This means they have these rules firmly drilled into their skulls. I think everyone reading this thread would like to actually see the pertinent quotes out of this Tour playbook that enable them to act with swiftness in this matter. Does anyone have access to the rules?
It was Limerickman on another thread swearing that Walsh was onto something in his book that Lance has been doping. I pointed out that this indicates a conspiracy because there would have to be more people involved than Lance Armstrong.
More as a play on this than anything else to point out the ludicrousness of believing in the commonality of conspiracies (they happen, just not very often), I made the comment that perhaps Beloki had taken some money from a conspirator who would benefit from eliminating the reigning Tour champion from the 2003 race. I don't believe this happened; I was just saying it to see if Limerickman would see how ridiculous the doping allegations are, considering how many people would have to be involved.
Again, see my comments above in response to wanting to see an official set of rules relating to swerving to avoid accidents. I think it's 2 posts up from this one.
Also, as I stated in that post, Lance had no time to stop to help Beloki. If he would have tried to stop, he would have crashed. You have to look again at this footage and also consider how steep the terrrain was there. I'm amazed Lance avoided disaster.
This is the rule that applies:
Race Incidents
In case of an accident or incident that could impinge upon the normal conduct of a race in general or
a particular stage thereof, the Race Manager may, after obtaining the agreement of the
Commissaires Panel and having informed the timekeepers, at any moment, decide:
• to modify the course,
• temporarily to neutralise the race or stage,
• to consider a stage as not having been run,
• to cancel part of a stage as well as the results of any possible intermediate classifications and to
restart the stage near the place of the incident,
• to let the results stand as are or
• to restart the stage, taking account of the gaps recorded at the moment of the incident.
Wow! Light shines in on the matter. I appreciate seeing the official's guidebook. Now I see that they have broad, sweeping discretion in deciding these matters during the Tour.
Given the vagueness of this (or for that matter, the interpretive power) it gives to the reigning race officials during the race, it's a wonder they can come to rapid agreement concerning a given incident. I wonder if they vote, and how many officials must come to agreement to decide how they will react to the given situation
Similar threads
