bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share Firstly let me state that i am a fan of Kevin Evans. However i would like to know what is your feeling of the article in TREAD magazine May/June 2012 on page 86. Whereby Burry was given outside assistance on stage 5 and broke rule 23.1 of the UCI,which states : " No seconding or outside assistance is permitted under any circumstances" First offence : 1 hour penaltySecond offence : Disquallification And why was this incident kept so quiet until Mr Tread published it ? We have discussed the topic before about the rules being the rules and we can not sway from them because where do we draw the line ? If Burry would of been given his penalty,the 2012 Epic would have changed altogether.Evans and George would of won the race,the Bulls would of taken the stage and the whole podium would of changed.Remember the pro's make a living from events like the Epic and new contracts are signed based on these results. I am interested in the replies and comments Edited June 6, 2012 by bassasdaindia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koukie Posted June 6, 2012 Share I did'nt knew he got outside assistance?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Ja but King Kev and George didn't want to win it like that... so no formal complaint from them after the stage. That is class imo Don't think it would have changed the end result...the strongest team won, the most loved team came second Wet Ears, Roer, Aquiles and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradwentzel Posted June 6, 2012 Share I was in the race office after that stage (probably looking for my personality) and heard the race officials discussing the "jacket" and that Burry/Sauser would be given a one hour penalty like the female leaders the year before. It seemed at the time, a matter of fact, and not up for discussion. But then it was swept under the rug in an instant. The commentator on the TV program even spoke about the jacket (a brown leather one, not even a spez branded one) in the highlights package. Good on Evans/George for not raising a fuss about the whole deal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share I did'nt knew he got outside assistance?? i don't think many knew,until the article. I never knew until i read it either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLuvsMtb Posted June 6, 2012 Share Firstly let me state that i am a fan of Kevin Evans. However i would like to know what is your feeling of the article in TREAD magazine May/June 2012 on page 86. Whereby Burry was given outside assistance on stage 5 and broke rule 23.1 of the UCI,which states : " No seconding or outside assistance is permitted under any circumstances" First offence : 1 hour penaltySecond offence : Disquallification And why was this incident kept so quiet until Mr Tread published it ? We have discussed the topic before about the rules being the rules and we can not sway from them because where do we draw the line ? If Burry would of been given his penalty,the 2012 Epic would have changed altogether.Evans and George would of won the race,the Bulls would of taken the stage and the whole podium would of changed.Remember the pro's make a living from events like the Epic and new contracts are signed based on these results. I am interested in the replies and commentsA cheap shot to try and get sales of the mag up - I'm sure that Burry / Christoph are both having a quiet giggle about this. My guess is that if they received a penalty, they would have simply rode an hour out of KE/DG in stages 6 and 7. Yes, they were THAT good this year! Deepblue and Karl Beaton 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share Ja but King Kev and George didn't want to win it like that... so no formal complaint from them after the stage. That is class imo Don't think it would have changed the end result...the strongest team won, the most loved team came second I don't think Kevin and David don't want to win like that either.Hence no comment from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranswurm Posted June 6, 2012 Share I was in the race office after that stage (probably looking for my personality) and heard the race officials discussing the "jacket" and that Burry/Sauser would be given a one hour penalty like the female leaders the year before. It seemed at the time, a matter of fact, and not up for discussion. But then it was swept under the rug in an instant. The commentator on the TV program even spoke about the jacket (a brown leather one, not even a spez branded one) in the highlights package. Good on Evans/George for not raising a fuss about the whole deal though. If it is true that it was swept under the carpet it places the whole integrity of the event in question.Whether KE an DG wanted to win like that or not is irrelevant.I have not read the Tread article and therefore am reacting purely to this thread Andro, Roer and Wet Ears 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLuvsMtb Posted June 6, 2012 Share by the way: Many of the pro's were taking news papers and jackets from the crowd on stage 5 and 6, you also see that on the Giro and LeTour every year. Hardly outside assistance if you ask me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share I was in the race office after that stage (probably looking for my personality) and heard the race officials discussing the "jacket" and that Burry/Sauser would be given a one hour penalty like the female leaders the year before. It seemed at the time, a matter of fact, and not up for discussion. But then it was swept under the rug in an instant. The commentator on the TV program even spoke about the jacket (a brown leather one, not even a spez branded one) in the highlights package. Good on Evans/George for not raising a fuss about the whole deal though. I only heard of this when i read the article,from what i now have heard confirms what you say:"that is was swept under the rug" that if true is not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geecee Posted June 6, 2012 Share a jacket... seriously. its not like they gave him new legs or a boost up a hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Could have / would have / should have does not count. History will say the race was really won by the team who stood on top of the podium at the finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzy Posted June 6, 2012 Share What exactly happened? Dit they "borrow" a jacket when they got cold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted June 6, 2012 Share a jacket... seriously. its not like they gave him new legs or a boost up a hillConcur, as well as I don't believe everything I read in magazines, especially the local ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share Could have / would have / should have does not count. History will say the race was really won by the team who stood on top of the podium at the finish. Yip,but the 360 manager wanted to give KE and DG raincoats and was denied by the referee ! Can someone please post the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted June 6, 2012 Share a jacket... seriously. its not like they gave him new legs or a boost up a hill My boet told me about another contender saying he would've taken a jacket that day if someone offered him one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now