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.