-
I'm going to get shouted at for saying this, but I don't think the descent was that bad. The UCI should've ensured that the dangers, which are the huge gutters, should've been addressed, but I assume the local climate means that they are essential to manage rainfall. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but no-one complained about the descent after the test event last summer.
Most of the cyclists have been out there for a week, they should've ensured they memorised the worst corners before the race. Obviously Van Vleuten was racing for gold, so was taking risks, but she carried too much speed into the corner and hit the brakes hard, causing her to lose control. I genuinely hope she is okay, but the crash was her fault.
andyp-
I agree, sort of. A techincal descent that is hard enough to push riders over limit is fine, but if you know they are going to crash (especially after yesterday) the least you can do is put up some protection on the worst corners. I don't blame Rio for this, the entire event is clearly totally fucking amateur, but the uci should have done something more than prancing about with their fucking iPad motor sensors
-
That's saying the riders had the chance to recon a descent, and prepare for it, so whatever the dangers of it, they are justified. With the stakes high you'll take risks. Descents always claim victims but race organisers should be looking to minimise then. I simply have no interest in seeing riders get hurt in that way. For sport etc.
-
That tarmac looks very fresh and I think played a part. Was it relaid before the test event too?
TheArchitect
Jimmy_Fingers
The_Seldom_Killer
So off the top of my head Porte, Nibali, Fuglsang, Thomas and Van Vleuten all crashed and injured on that descent, I personally never ever want to see an athlete go through what Van Vleuten had to, that is surely the most unsuitable course for a road race. Technical descents ok, but not murderous one. Boardman warned of the risk having ridden it, very poor judgement from race organisers and UCI.