The man who couldn't win: Schumie crashes Hincapie and wins ENECO?



H

Hunter

Guest
Anyone see this?

# 0 km Schumacher is now saying a spectator made contact with him and
almost knocked him over.
# 0 km Hincapie and Schumacher now exchanging a few choice words!!
# 0 km Philippe Gilbert finished a couple of seconds ahead of the
field.
# 0 km Incredible stuff!!!! Schumacher took Hincapie down in the
sprint - not deliberately, but his bike slipped away and took Hincapie
down! There is going to be huge controversy here. That result may not
stand!
# 0 km Stefan Schumacher wins the Tour of the Benelux a George
Hincapie crashes out just 10 metres from the line!!!!!
# 0 km Hincapie's down!!!!!!!!!!!
# 0.6 km Schumacher is the only one who can do it. He needs an
almighty sprint!!!
 
H

Hunter

Guest
Hunter wrote:


*#($, I intended to cut out the spoiler part of the header. Sorry
there.
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Dan Gregory wrote:
> Hunter wrote:
>> Anyone see this?

>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/aug06/eneco06/?id=results/eneco067


There exists the idiocy that the difference between 3rd and 4th is bigger
than the difference between 2nd and 3rd. 8-5-3. Why?. A far more logical
progression would be, for example, 6-3-1, or even 8-4-2.

Anyway, WRT this result, would it have been less fair if Shu had been
taken down by the spectator? Stuff happens in bike racing.

Dan
 
H

Hunter

Guest
Dan Connelly wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
> > Hunter wrote:
> >> Anyone see this?

> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/aug06/eneco06/?id=results/eneco067

>
> There exists the idiocy that the difference between 3rd and 4th is bigger
> than the difference between 2nd and 3rd. 8-5-3. Why?. A far more logical
> progression would be, for example, 6-3-1, or even 8-4-2.
>
> Anyway, WRT this result, would it have been less fair if Shu had been
> taken down by the spectator? Stuff happens in bike racing.
>
> Dan


Should it be negligence in a sprint to take a line that is so close to
the barriers as to be within the reach of spectators? In the event of
intentional or unintentional interference by spectators by reaching
across the barriers, should a rider contacted by a spectator be liable
for the effects of the contact?

No and no. Riders should be able to reasonably rely on the barriers to
provide a clear path to the finish line. The fault if any lies either
with the fan, the organizer, or the shape of the barriers themselves.
Since I'm in America, we sue them first.
 
J

Jeff Jones

Guest
Hunter wrote:

>
> No and no. Riders should be able to reasonably rely on the barriers to
> provide a clear path to the finish line. The fault if any lies either
> with the fan, the organizer, or the shape of the barriers themselves.
> Since I'm in America, we sue them first.


The barriers could have been designed better. Schumi did nothing wrong,
and neither did Hincapie. Bad way to finish a race though.

The finish bonuses are 10-6-4 seconds, btw. But yes, the gap between
second and third is bigger than that between third and fourth. In the
Tour and a few other races, it's 20-12-8 = same problem.

Jeff
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Jeff Jones wrote:
> Hunter wrote:
>
>> No and no. Riders should be able to reasonably rely on the barriers to
>> provide a clear path to the finish line. The fault if any lies either
>> with the fan, the organizer, or the shape of the barriers themselves.
>> Since I'm in America, we sue them first.

>
> The barriers could have been designed better. Schumi did nothing wrong,
> and neither did Hincapie. Bad way to finish a race though.
>
> The finish bonuses are 10-6-4 seconds, btw. But yes, the gap between
> second and third is bigger than that between third and fourth. In the
> Tour and a few other races, it's 20-12-8 = same problem.
>
> Jeff
>


This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two riders
coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down to let a
third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his advantage.

Okay, a small stretch....

But in bike racing, you're supposed to go faster, not slower :).

Dan
 
J

Jeff Jones

Guest
Dan Connelly wrote:

>
> This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two riders
> coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down to let a
> third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his advantage.
>
> Okay, a small stretch....
>

That is a stretch, because if you slow down, what's stopping your rival
from taking second? Except in a bizarre case like the finish today. I
don't think Schumacher planned that.

You do get more bonus seconds the higher up you finish, so I wouldn't
call it a big anomaly. But there is one, yes. In the event of Hincapie
finishing on Schumacher's wheel, Schumacher wins if they finish 1st and
2nd, or 3rd and 4th, but Hincapie wins if they finish 2nd and 3rd
(ignoring other factors).

Jeff
 
H

Hunter

Guest
Jeff Jones wrote:

Jeff, did anyone interview the spectator to find out what it's like to
ruin an entire week's race? Even for Schumacher, who can't enjoy his
win?
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Jeff Jones wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
>> This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two riders
>> coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down to let a
>> third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his advantage.
>>
>> Okay, a small stretch....
>>

> That is a stretch, because if you slow down, what's stopping your rival
> from taking second? Except in a bizarre case like the finish today. I
> don't think Schumacher planned that.


Okay, that's what I get for trying to post seconds before I have to leave
to catch the Noon Ride.


>
> You do get more bonus seconds the higher up you finish, so I wouldn't
> call it a big anomaly. But there is one, yes. In the event of Hincapie
> finishing on Schumacher's wheel, Schumacher wins if they finish 1st and
> 2nd, or 3rd and 4th, but Hincapie wins if they finish 2nd and 3rd
> (ignoring other factors).
>
> Jeff
>
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g>,
Dan Connelly <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:

> Jeff Jones wrote:
> > Hunter wrote:
> >
> >> No and no. Riders should be able to reasonably rely on the barriers to
> >> provide a clear path to the finish line. The fault if any lies either
> >> with the fan, the organizer, or the shape of the barriers themselves.
> >> Since I'm in America, we sue them first.

> >
> > The barriers could have been designed better. Schumi did nothing wrong,
> > and neither did Hincapie. Bad way to finish a race though.
> >
> > The finish bonuses are 10-6-4 seconds, btw. But yes, the gap between
> > second and third is bigger than that between third and fourth. In the
> > Tour and a few other races, it's 20-12-8 = same problem.
> >
> > Jeff
> >

>
> This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two riders
> coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down to
> let a third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to
> his advantage.
>
> Okay, a small stretch....
>
> But in bike racing, you're supposed to go faster, not slower :).


It's true that in general you're supposed to go faster, but I think that being
smarter has to count for something. A person who could work that scenario out and
pull it off did it smarter and so deserves the win.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g...

> This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two
> riders
> coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down
> to let a
> third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his
> advantage.
>
> Okay, a small stretch....
>
> But in bike racing, you're supposed to go faster, not slower :).
>


Try the elimination race (miss 'n' out): if you lap the field, you're
considered part of the bunch. No credit for lapping the field.

3.2.225 The fact that a rider may gain a lap shall not count.
 
D

dbrower

Guest
Time bonuses cut both ways. Which would play larger in Hincapie's
resume: Having worn yellow at the Tour, or having won the ENECO?
I'd say wearing yellow will play bigger. (Yes, it would be nice to
have both). If you get one on bonuses, and lose the other on them,
well, that's bike racing isn't it?

It's a really good case for double barriers, though.

-dB
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g...
>
>> This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two
>> riders
>> coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down
>> to let a
>> third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his
>> advantage.
>>
>> Okay, a small stretch....
>>
>> But in bike racing, you're supposed to go faster, not slower :).
>>

>
> Try the elimination race (miss 'n' out): if you lap the field, you're
> considered part of the bunch. No credit for lapping the field.
>
> 3.2.225 The fact that a rider may gain a lap shall not count.
>
>


True: that's even stupider :).


Dan
 
M

Mike G

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g...
>
> > This creates an anomaly where one is REWARDED for going SLOWER. Two
> > riders
> > coming into a sprint for second, one needs the bonus seconds, slows down
> > to let a
> > third rider pass and grab second, to now make the sprint for 3-4, to his
> > advantage.
> >
> > Okay, a small stretch....
> >
> > But in bike racing, you're supposed to go faster, not slower :).
> >

>
> Try the elimination race (miss 'n' out): if you lap the field, you're
> considered part of the bunch. No credit for lapping the field.
>
> 3.2.225 The fact that a rider may gain a lap shall not count.


It's on purpose.

To keep people from riding off the front in a race where the 'action' is
at the back, when the compression of the group at the line is part of
the excitement.

I consider it my sacred duty when announcing an elimination race to give
any rider that goes off the front the verbal b*tch-slapping they so
richly deserve for being a coward.

If they don't want to 'play the game' in an elimination - they shouldn't
enter them...

Mike G.
-
 
S

Stu Fleming

Guest
Mike G wrote:

> I consider it my sacred duty when announcing an elimination race to give
> any rider that goes off the front the verbal b*tch-slapping they so
> richly deserve for being a coward.
>
> If they don't want to 'play the game' in an elimination - they shouldn't
> enter them...


Yes, but going off the front just at the last sprint is a good tactic.
 
Dan Connelly wrote:

> Anyway, WRT this result, would it have been less fair if Shu had been
> taken down by the spectator? Stuff happens in bike racing.


Certainly if the spectator had taken down Schumi and
then the spectator had been declared the winner, a
protest would have been filed.

In any case, from now on Schumacher must be known
as "Michael."

Ben
 
M

MJ Ray

Guest
"Hunter" <[email protected]>
> Anyone see this?


Yep, on RTBF. It did look like a spectator may have hit Schumacher's
bandaged elbow. Can't really tell for sure from the TV. Credit to
Schumacher for doing an interview almost as soon as he was off the road,
before he could have seen replays. Hincapie looked to me like he was
saying nothing that would harm a complaint after checking the replays.

I also can't see how anyone could deliberately pull the swerve of
Schumacher in the sprint without hitting barriers or Manuele Mori(?him
or a Phonak, anyway), yet still take Hincapie out. If Schumacher's
bike-handling is that good, maybe he deserves the GC win for that alone!

If Hincapie hadn't been riding on Schumacher's shoulder in the sprint, he
wouldn't have finished sat on the road. Hincapie gambled on waiting and
overtaking at the last minute and it turned out to be the wrong tactic.
Mad stuff happens in sprints, as we've seen so often. George Hincapie
should have known the risk he was taking.

Well done Stefan Schumacher!
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
M

Mike G

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Stu Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike G wrote:
>
> > I consider it my sacred duty when announcing an elimination race to give
> > any rider that goes off the front the verbal b*tch-slapping they so
> > richly deserve for being a coward.
> >
> > If they don't want to 'play the game' in an elimination - they shouldn't
> > enter them...

>
> Yes, but going off the front just at the last sprint is a good tactic.


In our eliminations, the pulls end when we reach three riders. At that
point it's two laps to go before a sprint for the top three places.

MHO, of course...

You go before the last pull - bad.

You go after the last pull - fine.

It's a 'free' lap, not a neutral lap. 'Free' meaning no pulling.

Most races end up with the riders regrouping for a three-up sprint,
which can be aggressive if they have some strength left, or a
capitulation if they have more events in the omnium to save energy for.

Mike G.
-
 
S

Stu Fleming

Guest
Mike G wrote:

> In our eliminations, the pulls end when we reach three riders. At that
> point it's two laps to go before a sprint for the top three places.
>
> MHO, of course...
>
> You go before the last pull - bad.
>
> You go after the last pull - fine.


Agreed.
I meant with two laps to go. If (when I was fit enough to race, rather
than fat like now) I had a decent 500m sprint I'd take a flyer off the
top banking while No. 4 was getting eliminated at the back.
 

Similar threads