Olympics 2012 track cycling

^^^Beat me to it

I was going with what was being said: that the video stills of Pendleton in front of Varnish was the evidence of Varnish not having done her full lap as Pendleton is in front at the point where the lap is counted, being the line on the track which was the opposite line to the finish one (end of straight).

That was the image being splatted on the screen and debated, and if that image is at the point when Varnish should still have been in front then yes... Pendleton was in front and it was black and white.

The same image and line was the one that was examined for the Chinese incident. And at that point there were three frames of video constantly being jogged back and forth that showed the Chinese side by side on that line. Hence... if the issue is "person A in front of person B on this line", then the Chinese were side by side and there is no accurate enough data that was broadcast to suggest any different.

I don't profess to know the UCI rules. I watch and enjoy the sport, and when the UCI rules get involved I listen to whatever they are this time around and roll my eyes. But I do take them for what they say they are and make my own mind up based on what's on the screen.

You know all those replays they kept showing of the Chinese pair being dead level as they crossed the pursuiter's line are completely irrelevant don't you? The points in question are 15 meters either side of that which which would have been indicated with pads on the cote d'azur, giving a 30m changeover zone. If the following rider starts to pass the front rider before the first point then it's a DQ, if you haven't started passing by the second point then it's a DQ. Even just slightly overlapping wheels before the 15m point would lead to a disqualification.

Unfortunately there were no TV cameras on the changeover marks so I can't say for certain whether they should have been disqualified or not but I would have thought the comms would have there own camera or a line judge watching them.

It's not a massively complicated rule and it's been in place for some time so all the riders know about it, it's just a shame none of the commentators or TV director made an effort to even understand it as all the replays they kept showing of both incidents meant nothing.

Nope. I didn't know that.

Most of the videos focused on those lines religiously and the commentary made out that this was the end of the changeover gap... so the point at which the changeover had to have occurred by.

Hence my understanding, but I stand corrected.

The points in question are 15 meters either side of that which which would have been indicated with pads on the cote d'azur, giving a 30m changeover zone. If the following rider starts to pass the front rider before the first point then it's a DQ, if you haven't started passing completed your change by the second point then it's a DQ. Even just slightly overlapping wheels before the 15m point would lead to a disqualification.

Fixed that

What counts as a completed change? First rider completely swung up out of the way? Completely passed? Front wheel of second rider in front? If the front rider swings up but their front wheel is still ahead by the mark is it still complete?

I can see why people get confused!

Good thread on it here
http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10151&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Nope. I didn't know that.

Most of the videos focused on those lines religiously and the commentary made out that this was the end of the changeover gap... so the point at which the changeover had to have occurred by.

Hence my understanding, but I stand corrected.

The cameras for Pendleton and Varnish where focussed on the actual finish line on the track for some reason, while for the Chinese pair they were focused on the pursuiters line. Bit of a balls up on the commentary as none were relevant to the actual incidents, hence all the subsequent confusion.

What counts as a completed change? First rider completely swung up out of the way? Completely passed? Front wheel of second rider in front? If the front rider swings up but their front wheel is still ahead by the mark is it still complete?

I can see why people get confused!

Exactly. The rules simply use the term 'draw away' this doesn't say in which direction.
Simply put though, the lead rider needs to be out of the way of the other before that last 15m point. Not sure the dynamics of the race /track geometry would actually allow the lead rider to still be ahead if they'd swung right up...unless he/she was still hammering it and rider 2 was suddenly a bit slow

Good thread on it here
http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10151&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

From that thread:

That red blur is the 15m pad. Correct decision by the comms then.

Speaking about rules.. how fucking dodgy is this:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/londonspy/olympic-swimming-gold-winner-admits-using-illegal-kick-101642804.html

Another reason these bullshit swim stroke variations shouldn't even be in the Games.

With no underwater technology swimming's governing body has no way to investigate the admission five days after the event, meaning that the South African will retain his gold medal.

Why would they need 'underwater technology' to investigate something that he's freely admitted to?

Exactly. The rules simply use the term 'draw away' this doesn't say in which direction.
Simply put though, the lead rider needs to be out of the way of the other before that last 15m point. Not sure the dynamics of the race /track geometry would actually allow the lead rider to still be ahead if they'd swung right up...unless he/she was still hammering it and rider 2 was suddenly a bit slow

The full text of Art 3.2.153 is:
3.2.153 A team shall be relegated to the last place in the stage of the competition if one of the following infringements has been committed:
1) if a rider draws away by more than 15 metres before the end of the lap that he is to lead
2) if a rider does not draw away by more than 15 metres after the end of the lap that he was supposed to lead
3) if one rider pushes another.

The wording is so poor you could argue the 15m must be measured between the riders... though that would be insane.

If the first rider had completely dropped the second, could 'draw away' allow both to complete the race inside the sprinter's line? (with the time taken on the second rider of course.) i.e. draw away ahead? What about if the first rider dropped the second then pulled out of the path of the second at some point before going 15m beyond the end of their lap? i.e.draw away to the side? Both of these seem possible to me, but the first impractically vague as a rider's influence fades slowly behind them.

In loose language, what's wanted is that each rider must constrain their team's performance until their lap is completed, and must cease contributing after their lap. I think that 'draw away' is a fine term to describe ceasing to contribute, but a poor way of describing their constraining effect during their lap.

The rules could make the rider a constraint on their team by requiring they be ahead until their lap is completed, and require that they cease contributing by drawing away to the side after their lap. Lead could simply be measured from the front of front wheels (allowing overlap). No transition zone is necessary: the first rider could draw away to the side (or ahead) before the line but remain in the lead until after the line.

But it seems reasonable to allow some kind of transition buffer where constraint is released but contribution still allowed to make compliance easier. 30m is less than 2s at race speeds.

Constraining the following rider to not overlap the first rider would be a plausible alternative but seems un-necessarily restrictive. I don't see that overlap is a significant advantage: the following rider would have to cover the distance sooner or later and is giving up the shelter of the lead rider to do it early. The freedom might let a team slightly adjust how the work is shared, but so does the transition zone.

From that thread:

That red blur is the 15m pad. Correct decision by the comms then.

You're saying the first rider has 'drawn away' at that point? But the second rider is still close enough to be influenced by the wake of the first, and the first is still riding in the correct position on the track. (It's the second who is out of position - coming up the inside - but the rules refer to the actions of the first rider.)

it probably has been mentioned here already, if not this thread maybe another. If not I saw a tweet from Varno asking why do they limit 1 rider per a nation for the track cycling but not other games? The Jamaicans gave the 200m a clean sweep last night and so many Americans swimmers competing against each other. Why not the track cycling? Why did they change it since the last Olympics? It'd be awesome, and I am pretty sure it would have been possible had it not for 1 rider per a nation, that we see 3 Union Jacks up in the air at the same time.

Pretty much to ensure that no single nation can dominate in that way.

The number of track events is limited to ensure dominance in track cycling doesn't mean you lead the leaderboard overall just because there are more events in track cycling.

Fair point, but they are not limiting the BMX games the same way though, and that's even less games on the BMX track.

^^^ My thoughts exactly. There was an all usa volleyball final the other day. Ridiculous.

Although, the limitations brought in, in effect to limit the dominance of the GB team specifically, resulted in GB getting exactly the same number of medals this year as in Beijing.

Pretty much to ensure that no single nation can dominate in that way.

The number of track events is limited to ensure dominance in track cycling doesn't mean you lead the leaderboard overall just because there are more events in track cycling.

Yet USA win 32 swimming medals, 21 of which split between 4 individuals (and a couple of relays)

By comparison GB win 9 track medals split between 5 individuals (and team pursuit)

Double standards

You're saying the first rider has 'drawn away' at that point? But the second rider is still close enough to be influenced by the wake of the first, and the first is still riding in the correct position on the track. (It's the second who is out of position - coming up the inside - but the rules refer to the actions of the first rider.)

You could argue that, in the "spirit of the rules", as the second rider has started the passing manoeuvre already that the lead rider is drawing away despite not actually moved completely up the track at that point. At least that's how the commisaire has interpreted the rules and I make him right in this instance.

The rules are worded pretty badly and desperately need proper clarification but the interpretation has been correct in this instance imo. They started the change too early and were punished for it.

This isn't some new rule either - all the riders at this level should be aware of what the interpretation of those rules is going to be. It's not like they haven't competed in enough events at this level, with the same officials, already.

So:
All the attention on what was happening on the marked lines is very silly.
The no drawing away early rule is quite silly, but at least it's arguable it was fairly applied to the GB and Chinese women.
Except that on the same interpretation some of the men's teams should have been DQ'd too...
So actually it looks like they were looking at who lead across one or the other of the marked lines. Or making it up as they went along.
?

So:
All the attention on what was happening on the marked lines is very silly.
The no drawing away early rule is quite silly, but at least it's arguable it was fairly applied to the GB and Chinese women.
Except that on the same interpretation some of the men's teams should have been DQ'd too...
So actually it looks like they were looking at who lead across one or the other of the marked lines. Or making it up as they went along.
?

I don't think it's a silly rule, it's the same as having a changeover zone in the 4x100 relay, there needs to be some rule there to make sure each rider does their full turn.

With some of the other rides that didn't get DQ'd I think it was simply poor judging those cases, they probably should have been DQ'd but got away with it because the line judge who was watching for it wasn't on the ball. Someone elsewhere has argued for line cameras for these sort of decisions to take out human error and I make him right.

It's a silly rule because it's about the wrong thing. You can draw away without starting a transition - it just makes it harder for whoever was trying to follow you. Much better to have a rule that's actually about where the transition of who is in front occurs.

The inefficiency of riding in a staggered line is punishment enough - making a rule against it just pointlessly punishes people who do it by accident.

@moth

1) if a rider draws away by more than 15 metres before the end of the lap that he is to lead

Because this is a translation from the French/Swiss/UCI special Esperanto, you can simplify it by removing the word 'by'. Then it makes sense. Although we stil don't get conformation of what 'draw away' means, we take it to mean get yourself out and away from where you rode your lap (nominally the sprinters lane).
If rider 2 is already overlapping underneath you 15m before the end of your lap then you are considered to have begun drawing away. Makes sense to me.

As has been said, and will surely happen now, the rules will be amended to make them easier to interpret. And then hopefully we won't see perfectly good races ruined by petty minded little hitlers with overinflated egos.

Yeah - i'm just going on because i'm annoyed by the pointless waste of the disqualifications.

Would times improve significantly if there were no restrictions at all on the transitions (except contact)?

Well you need some restriction otherwise it might encourage such serious rule bending that changes would be taking place all over the shop. However, completely stopping riders from overlapping closely and using the whole 30m to effect changes will extend overall times.

Yeah, but 2/3rds of them were used by Usain Bolt.

I have a vision of some kind of Wile E Coyote catapult propelling him through the 100m

Or making it up as they went along?

When it comes to UCI commissaires, this is easily the most plausible explanation. The regulation as translated into English is all but incomprehensible.
'When I use a word,' commissaire Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Would times improve significantly if there were no restrictions at all on the transitions?

Unlikely; in the case of women the difference between the team sprint record (32.422) and the solo 500m TT record (33.010) is pretty small, especially in the context of what other people were doing at the meets where those two records were set, i.e. London seems to be faster all round. Essentially, the fact of riding in company exactly balances the use of tribars in the solo event, and would probably still do so if the lead rider stayed on the front for the full distance, with just the aero gain of having a following rider's bow wave filling her wake void.