WHO REALLY WON THE 2012 EPIC ?

[Stevief]

I will add some fuel to the debate. Personally I think the opinion of rules are rules are just dumb!

 

That is like approaching a red traffic light in the middle of the night and you notice their is an armed gang. So you choose to stop at the red traffic light, even though the intersection is clear and then get attacked by the gang. Afterwards, you explain that rules are rules, you are not suppose to drive over traffic lights. That is dumb.

 

Now I am not for anyone just going ahead and breaking the rules. However an incident such as this should be reviewed by the race organisers and a decision should then be made whether or not an offence occurred and if it should be penalised. This may or may not have happened.

 

For Burry and Christoph to have been penalised by an hour for this incident, which I believe to be a health issue would have been ludicrous. Similarly, not allowing jackets to KE and DG was a foolish judgement, considering the conditions.

Dude your hijacking analogy is dumb, we talking about rules in sport , not survival, grow up and try understand whats being debated. And again you state "you belive to be a health issue" its not for you to belive or not belive anything, the rules state clearly that any outside assistance is an hour penalty thats the rules . Now i dont care if you find the rules are rules are dumb, thems the rules mate and thats the way the game is played if you dont like them rules go play something else.

[splat]

Didn't KE and DG take an SA flag from supporters before the finish line at the Epic - clearly outside assistance and a 1 hour penalty should be in order here...

 

The horror!

[Iron]

Some issues are marginal and could go both ways. That's what race commisioners are for. Its no use of basing your comments on what some tjop at TREAD with a laptop and a spellchecker thinks. If this was a real issue, there would have been a proper press release about it at the time.

 

Exzakery !

[Stevief]

Some issues are marginal and could go both ways. That's what race commisioners are for. Its no use of basing your comments on what some tjop at TREAD with a laptop and a spellchecker thinks. If this was a real issue, there would have been a proper press release about it at the time.

Dude this has nothing to do about anything marginal, the issue happened it was real i saw it on Tv myself, the commentators were talking about , im not basing my comments on some tjop from Tread, im basing my comments on facts. Fact 1 Burry took a jersey . Fact 2 it was outside assistance as he didnt have it on him. Thems the facts mate and the rules say you cannot do that.

 

The issue is not about why there wasnt a press release etc , the issue should be why why why were the rules not enforced?? If it was explained why then we could move fwd BUT now that its rearing its head questions will be asked.

[(Deon)]

SO back to the article.. What checks were done before publishing? Was the Epic contacted for comment?

 

Would not be the first misleading article if not..

[Wyatt Earp]

WHO REALLY WON THE 2012 EPIC ?

 

 

The short and sweet answer really is ,Kevin Vermaak.

[GaryP]

Rules are rules and if they are not upheld then why have them? I totally agree that they would likely not have had any affect on the overall result because the stronger riders did win and KE/DG were very worthy runners up (their mechanicals earlier in the race affected the result much more imo ). However, don't make rules you don't intend to apply to everyone and if you don't apply them be transparent, consistent and provide reasons for not applying them.

 

And on the topic of Tread publishing the story - thanks, I like to know what is going on! If it Tread's sales at the same time, great too, nothing wrong with that!

[Tumbleweed]

SO back to the article.. What checks were done before publishing? Was the Epic contacted for comment?

 

Would not be the first misleading article if not..

 

Yup, hence the statement to the media from the Epic organisers.

[Gerhardc]

WHO REALLY WON THE 2012 EPIC ?

 

 

The short and sweet answer really is ,Kevin Vermaak.

 

ha-ha-ha!! good one!

[Gerhardc]

Yup, hence the statement to the media from the Epic organisers.

 

.....and what did the statement say? if I may ask?

[D-Mike]

Dude your hijacking analogy is dumb, we talking about rules in sport , not survival, grow up and try understand whats being debated. And again you state "you belive to be a health issue" its not for you to belive or not belive anything, the rules state clearly that any outside assistance is an hour penalty thats the rules . Now i dont care if you find the rules are rules are dumb, thems the rules mate and thats the way the game is played if you dont like them rules go play something else.

Well that is why there is race organisers to evaluate, implement and enforce the rules. Rules serve a general purpose, which is usually along the lines of ensuring fair competition and that one person or another is not unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged. If the race organisers take the view that Burry was not unfairly advantaged, they can make that ruling.

 

The only critique that could possibly be given then, is that their was not sufficient transparency regarding the issue. Burry and Christoph is not at fault here, but the integrity of the race organisers are in question.

 

You are right what I believe is irrelevant, but since this is a forum, I may give my opinion. What is important on this issue is the ruling of the race organisers. If you don't like the way they implement the rules, write an email and complain.

[rouxtjie]

The crux for me isn't that burry took the jacket but that it's alleged 360Life's manager tried to afford his riders the same luxury, but was refused...wonder what the facts are there

[Tumbleweed]

Well that is why there is race organisers to evaluate, implement and enforce the rules. Rules serve a general purpose, which is usually along the lines of ensuring fair competition and that one person or another is not unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged. If the race organisers take the view that Burry was not unfairly advantaged, they can make that ruling.

 

The only critique that could possibly be given then, is that their was not sufficient transparency regarding the issue. Burry and Christoph is not at fault here, but the integrity of the race organisers are in question.

 

You are right what I believe is irrelevant, but since this is a forum, I may give my opinion. What is important on this issue is the ruling of the race organisers. If you don't like the way they implement the rules, write an email and complain.

 

As I understand it, the matter was brought up by the UCI officials at a team manager meeting. No protest was received.

[Wyatt Earp]

As I understand it, the matter was brought up by the UCI officials at a team manager meeting. No protest was received.

Good stuff, I just love more hearsay.

[jcmeyerSS]

The crux for me isn't that burry took the jacket but that it's alleged 360Life's manager tried to afford his riders the same luxury, but was refused...wonder what the facts are there

Ditto

[Danger Dassie]

Some issues are marginal and could go both ways. That's what race commisioners are for. Its no use of basing your comments on what some tjop at TREAD with a laptop and a spellchecker thinks. If this was a real issue, there would have been a proper press release about it at the time.

 

As opposed to a tjop with a keyboard and personal gripe on a forum?