onetrackmind Posted June 6, 2012 Share Wow, I spend a day away from my computer and all hell breaks loose. Having read all thirteen pages of this fred, it is clear who has read the article, and who is making up what thye think it might say. The story is filled with nasty theory-ruiners caled facts. And is told from all sides. It does not make anybody out to be whiners or whingers, it doesn't make any accusations (if anybody should be nailed here, it is the UCI for not having the balls to act on a high-profile transgression), it just sets out the truth. Personally, I think Burry and Christoff got lucky. Who was going to protest and look like a chop? Burry knowingly, openly broke the rules (the decision that conditions were dangerous were made after the leaders have finished, from what I have been told ) and was not punished. Should his transgression have cost him the Epic win? Probably not (although, had he gone hypothermic because he didn't plan properly, maybe it should). Should he have been allowed to keep the stage win - nobody mentions it here, but it is the Bulls team, I think they finished second on the day, who really got shafted here - I don't think so. Should he and Christoff have sat up and not contested it, or even dropped back to ride with David and Kevin, almost like in F1 when you give back the place if you took it by cutting a chicane - definitely. It would appear neither Burry nor Christoff think too clearly about the right way of doing things - jumping fences to ride parts of the Epic route illegally (should Christoff actually have been riding the Epic, having broken that rule?), and going off on twitter about an alleged protest about a shirt (an earlier poster needs to get his facts straight on that one), whithout finding out the truth first (I wonder if Burry ever apologised to Kevin or David for that one?). It all leaves a sour taste in the mouth, and Vermaak and the UCI should have done something about it at the time, even if that something was difficult or unpopular. The rules, especially for the pros, must be absolute. Danger Dassie, TheV and Caerus 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrackmind Posted June 6, 2012 Share Looks like a spesh jacket to me not a leather one I think people are confusing it with the Hansie story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawieO Posted June 6, 2012 Share At Ironman South Africa this year a guy got disqualified 200m from the finish for outside assistance after his (non-competing) mate ran with him for a bit. It was adjudged to be pacing. This after a day marked by 80km/h winds, ugly choppy seas and a very cold run in the rain... Rules is rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big H* Posted June 6, 2012 Share Let's talk about jumping red traffic lights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zac.A Posted June 6, 2012 Share I was about 1km from the finish and when they came past Burry was wearing a red spez jacket... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassasdaindia Posted June 6, 2012 Share Wow, I spend a day away from my computer and all hell breaks loose. Having read all thirteen pages of this fred, it is clear who has read the article, and who is making up what thye think it might say. The story is filled with nasty theory-ruiners caled facts. And is told from all sides. It does not make anybody out to be whiners or whingers, it doesn't make any accusations (if anybody should be nailed here, it is the UCI for not having the balls to act on a high-profile transgression), it just sets out the truth. Personally, I think Burry and Christoff got lucky. Who was going to protest and look like a chop? Burry knowingly, openly broke the rules (the decision that conditions were dangerous were made after the leaders have finished, from what I have been told ) and was not punished. Should his transgression have cost him the Epic win? Probably not (although, had he gone hypothermic because he didn't plan properly, maybe it should). Should he have been allowed to keep the stage win - nobody mentions it here, but it is the Bulls team, I think they finished second on the day, who really got shafted here - I don't think so. Should he and Christoff have sat up and not contested it, or even dropped back to ride with David and Kevin, almost like in F1 when you give back the place if you took it by cutting a chicane - definitely. It would appear neither Burry nor Christoff think too clearly about the right way of doing things - jumping fences to ride parts of the Epic route illegally (should Christoff actually have been riding the Epic, having broken that rule?), and going off on twitter about an alleged protest about a shirt (an earlier poster needs to get his facts straight on that one), whithout finding out the truth first (I wonder if Burry ever apologised to Kevin or David for that one?). It all leaves a sour taste in the mouth, and Vermaak and the UCI should have done something about it at the time, even if that something was difficult or unpopular. The rules, especially for the pros, must be absolute. well written post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown MTBR Posted June 6, 2012 Share i really like Kev and George, but 360songo specialized were fantastic this year! Big Ups to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arendoog Posted June 6, 2012 Share I see your point, but I was there and the temperature mid way through plummeted, the wind chill factor was huge and it occurred on a section that did not require you to pedal, or was not possible to pedal through. You could not have forseen this and thus the scramble for warmth. I watched as a friend of mine stood in front of me - BLUE, passed out on her feet, eyes rolling back in her head, shaking uncontrollably and still wanting to continue. I would have given her my only raincoat but it was too little too late. She did not continue under orders from the medic. She could have passed out while descending and killed herself. Which transgression is worse? Kevin and David struggled with a puncture on stage 2/3 and lost 10-15 minutes stopping a few times... You say race strategy? Should they not have specified more puncture resistant tires? Originally the race rules did not allow for replacement wheels etc at tech zones...now they do. The race will evolve, the racing got better as teams weren't out of the game if they suffered a failure.I reckon the organisers can change rules if it involves health at risk and that is probably what happend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted June 6, 2012 Share . The rules, especially for the pros, must be absolute. Second funniest thing I've read all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheV Posted June 6, 2012 Share Second funniest thing I've read all day. Funniest? please share... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manbearpig Posted June 7, 2012 Share The way I see it, simple. They have broken the rules, they would not have been able to win otherwise. It was a cold, rainy day - a warm jacket was as important as being given a new pedal... Therefore they have received important outside support that allowed them as a team to push hard. Shame on them for taking the win well knowing this... PS: It did happen, it is not just the imagination of the magazine. Anyone watching the TV-Coverage would have seen this! Shame on all of you who think this is good and right and the way our Pro's should race and handle themselves. Shame on the organisers for allowing this to happen and not do anything about it, or at least make a statement on why they have made the decision they did, if they did make a decision.So what about the guys on the Tour who get handed newspaper to stuff in their shirts before a cold descent? That surely is outside assistance. Where is the line drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted June 7, 2012 Share So what about the guys on the Tour who get handed newspaper to stuff in their shirts before a cold descent? That surely is outside assistance. Where is the line drawn? Someone else asked that same question much earlier, but as a result of being overly biased, it was never answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Posted June 7, 2012 Share Correct me if I am wrong but... surely the rider that’s not sleeping in the tent and does not have to wash or fix his own bike also has an advantage. If they really want to limit the outside assistance they should not allow riders to sleep outside of the tented race village. No mechanics should be allowed – riders must fix their own bikes.No outside massage therapists.All riders should be queuing for the same toilets and showers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrackmind Posted June 7, 2012 Share So what about the guys on the Tour who get handed newspaper to stuff in their shirts before a cold descent? That surely is outside assistance. Where is the line drawn? The Tour has nothing to do with the Epic - I don't see the point of your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted June 7, 2012 Share The Tour has nothing to do with the Epic - I don't see the point of your question? Very true, but they have one common enemy. http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6188/6106228941_6e8783b3df_z.jpgIMG_7754 by OddPix1, on Flickr So yeah, the question is rather valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrackmind Posted June 7, 2012 Share Very true, but they have one common enemy. http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6188/6106228941_6e8783b3df_z.jpgIMG_7754 by OddPix1, on Flickr So yeah, the question is rather valid. You make an excellent point. 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