-
Hoogerland's race was undeniably altered from that moment on. Whether he retained the jersey for one stage or not doesn't impact the remainder of the tour, nor the contribution his team missed as a result of his injuries.
Ted King rode a TTT with a separated shoulder due to a crash, and there was a considerable timing discrepancy between the Tour's time that they used to disqualify him and other timings. No explanation given, no appeal considered despite the possibility that it the decision had been made in error.
That's just two incidents where the race jury could have made amendments to take into account various factors. Evans getting tacks in his tyres, Gilbert hitting a spectator's dog, riders hitting badly signalled street furniture, there's plenty of bullshit happenstances that impact a myriad of different ways.
Froome got caught up in a crash. This happens to riders all the time; whether they are in contention or not really doesn't matter. It's very rare if not exceptional for anyone to be plopped back to the top of the leader board, non?
deleted-
You can't compensate for the rest of a race (unless you give them a motorised bike?), so isn't a lot more they could have done for Hoogerland, and presumably the race jury did decide on Ted King, and decided that he didn't make the cut (regardless of whether that was accurate or not).
-
t's very rare if not exceptional for anyone to be plopped back to the top of the leader board, non?
Froome's not just plopped back to the top of the leaderboard though is he? That's just utter bullshit.
He's given the same time as Bauke Mollema. You know, one of the other people that was in the same crash. Bauke Mollema was not given back any time for crashing, he just got his finishing time including the time stopped because of the crash.
So what becomes important here is the cause of the crash. That's excessive crowding on the route. Another effect of that crowding was that no car, Sky or NSV could actually get to Froome to give him a replacement bike. When the NSV could finally get through the crowds to Froome, they gave him an unrideable bike. So giving Froome the same time as Mollema means that he also lost the same amount of time due to the crash.
To make the argument that he's plopped back on top you'd have to prove that he would have been put there even if giving him the same time as Mollema wouldn't have achieved that. I don't reckon you can. Also note that Porte, also involved in the crash, was given the same time despite having to stop briefly to make a mechanical repair and riding later. If anything, Porte gets more favourable treatment and advances in the GC because of it.
-
I wanted Yates to be up there but I kind of have to agree with their decision.
branwen
The_Seldom_Killer
hippy
Hoogerland wasn't in contention for the GC so the time loss wasn't relevant to him. Having managed to finish and retain the polka dot jersey, there really wasn't a lot that the race organisers could do to redress the damage done.
I thought that the crash that affected Ted King was neutralised but it was his inability to finish a subsequent stage within the time limit that got him cut out. I'm not sure that you would have offered him but it seems like the type of cut out that would have been repeated over and again.
In contrast to those two incidents, Froome, Mollema and Porte were all in GC contention. Froome isn't injured or unable to continue but left without access to a bike that he could use to continue the race. He wasn't given his time as if he hadn't crashed but given the same time as the other two riders who's bikes hadn't been critically damaged.
I think from that perspective, all three riders you example have been treated equally according to their circumstances. What to you feel should have been offered to either Hoogerland or King in order for them as to have been treated equally to Froome today?