I thought the same thing when I saw it- looked like a move that really put the descending peleton at
risk, when he could have stayed on the left side of the road, instead of crossing their path.
"trg" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field. That
> was understandable and perfectly allowable, since
he
> didn't benefit from it. But after he crossed the field, and jumped over
the
> ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before getting on his
bike.
> Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of crossing to the other side?
>
> Michael Fuhr wrote:
> > Darrell Criswell <
[email protected]> writes:
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> >>> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
> >>> didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
> >>> instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
> >>>
> >>> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
> >>
> >> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
> >> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut,
> >> of course not one that he wanted to take.
> >
> > This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he
> > didn't plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go
> > back? It was nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not the
> > letter.
> >
> > I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto
> > the road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.