DQ at PR race

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by cycledogg, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. cycledogg

    cycledogg Guest

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


  2. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "cycledogg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    >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
     
  4. alan_atwood

    alan_atwood Guest

    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
     
  5. SH

    SH Guest

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

    >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.
     
  6. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    SH wrote:

    > 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.
     
  7. On 10 Apr 2006 12:34:47 -0700, "alan_atwood" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >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...
     
  8. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

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


    Stu Fleming wrote:
    > 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
     
  9. > 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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 10 Apr 2006 12:34:47 -0700, "alan_atwood" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >
     
  10. Mark Janeba

    Mark Janeba Guest

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

    Mark
     
Loading...