asgelle

And the rules for road bikes have been published for years as well*. The point is that if the UCI officials are going to have a zero tolerance policy on equipment regulations, then they have to enforce that uniformly for all riders in all races. They can't selectively choose who gets a free pass and who doesn't.

A few other things. There was at least one obvious case where the same official passed a bike during the courtesy check only to fail it for the start (the ends of the shift levers on the bar extensions were higher than the saddle and he never checked that the first time, but did on the final). And no, I didn't mean too long. There is a restriction on how much higher the ends of the bar extensions can be relative to the elbow pads.

*Bikes used for road racing must have drop bars, 1.3.022. Even the most casual glance would show that bike is illegal.

gsteinb

And, to state the obvious, clearly they don't.

asgelle

Except nowhere in the rules of the sport are the officials given that latitude. Do you really think it's healthy for a sport to allow officials to make up rules on the fly based on whatever whim they may have or to create a feel good story? I like you (or your DS bought me dinner last night) so saddle forward of the bottom bracket, no problem. I don't like you (you beat a friend of mine last week) so your saddle has to be 7 cm behind the BB.

echappist

you have completely taken this thing off topic. we are dealing with in-race mishaps, and the resulting usage of non-team provided equipment (by a fan, in the instant case), not a broader set of rules. Arguing about TT bike set-up is a red herring not germane to the instant discussion despite both nominally related as they deal with regulation. Attempting to conflate the instant case with any possible latitude officials may have in all occasions is bordering on either slippery slope fallacy or a strawman.

At least you could have stayed closer to topic by referring to the incident at the 2016 Tour down Under when Farrar had to borrow a spectator's bike to finish the stage, or perhaps the 2008 ToC when Julich borrowed a spare wheel from a fan. Both instances would be proscribed by the rules, but both riders went given reprieves. You could perhaps especially comment on how the enforcement at the ToC was different from the treatment that Ritchie Porte received at the Giro as a further statement toward how you think the rules are not applied equally concerning using spare equipment not provided by your own team. Pointing to any of the above is much better than dragging the discussion completely off course.

asgelle

The reason it's on topic is that regardless of the rules regarding non-team provided equipment and whatever exceptions may or may not have been made, the bicycle used in this case was not legal for UCI road races. The commonality is applying equipment regulations uniformly across all stages in a stage race.

Would people be as accepting if the bike he took was an e-bike, but he swore he pedaled the whole way and never turned the motor on? How about a full-on TT bike?

echappist

arguendos and subjunctive are fun thought experiments, but still not applicable as neither actually happened.

The one commonality between what was deemed allowable (both in the case of Farrar and the instant) is that they both crashed and had no access to replacement bikes; thus, both occurred as a result of a very narrow set of circumstances as opposed to something that can be broadly generalized. That they crashed and were without team support is the mitigating circumstance. One could get all legalistic and apply the letter of the law, but one could also take the broader view that they have both suffered enough as is, why the DQ when the only ramification is whether they'll be allowed to start the next stage?

And since you had previously expanded the discussion outwards, allow me to throw out a red herring of my own. If an officer pulls you over for speeding and decides to give you a warning due to whatever mitigating circumstances as opposed to slapping you with the ticket, would you argue with the officer that he should write you the ticket because that is what the letter of the law says?

asgelle

This is the point you continue to miss. The police officer is granted, by law, the discretion to issue a warning or a ticket. He is following the letter of the law when only giving a warning. The UCI, on the other hand, does not offer commissaires any discretion in applying equipment regulations.

Doge

I was not there, but I heard there was an official present and he asked before taking the bike.

On a number of occasions a referee can be asked before the event about an exception. That is different. @asgelle made the point referees are not given the latitude to vary on rule application in cycling. That is what I understand, but have not read it as such, however it is not my experience. I do know they are given that latitude in many sports.

asgelle

With respect to equipment. I couldn't speak on other areas.

Doge

What do you see as the point of the UCI rule on accepting equipment from other than team (or race support)? I would expect the only time this would happen is with some mishap.

tetonrider

as someone who has been subject to those regs and selective enforcement, i WISH the rules (esp for TTs) were fully enforced. [actually, i wish that none of them were enforced, but that's another matter.]

i have seen floppy jigs that could pass a bike on one go-round and fail it on another. i have seen officials at check-in the night before not look at one parameter of the bike only to see a different (or even the same!) official check for it the next day. as a result, i've always erred on the side of being within the letter of every reg.

yep, i might have lost out due to someone who pushed the rules, but i accept that. i also have never had to change the angle of my saddle 2 minutes before my TT start, as happened to a friend just last week. i guess it is a risk one takes.

that said, i do see a significant difference between breaking a rule due to an in-race mishap, with no support, and not done to gain an advantage vs something a person failed to check (or just pushed) beforehand and then showed up to race. if you don't see that distinction, there's not much point in continuing our discussion, and that's OK.

tetonrider

no. i've seen it in pro/1 conti races where the break is getting support from team cars, except one rider's team car is not there -- either not in the caravan at all (they are riding solo) or the car is way back in the caravan. happened to a friend--he was dropped from a winning break as a result. the riders and other team cars couldn't help him and chose not to even attempt to break the rules there

had they broken the rule, i'm not sure what would have happened.

anyway, it's not just​ mishap.

Doge

Except, you may get support, in terms of drinks, food from other teams, just not equipment.

CliffordK

The sport is about riding bicycles.
The guy rode a bicycle across the finish line (no longer at the front of the pack).

I don't think I'd want any official that couldn't see that.

Now, had his feet slipped off of the pedals causing a massive pileup, then he could have gotten fined or ejected from the race, and that is a risk the rider apparently took. Probably not too big of a deal if he was away from the pack among the stragglers.

Doge

I was curious about this from a pure - how can Mr. Simonson keep UCI 2.2 status allowing this. Looks like he didn't finish the race so point is moot. Made a nice story.

rankin116

Another argument is that he did get an advantage because he started the next day. And his teammates benefited from that as well, obviously.

tetonrider

mind sending me the rule that makes that distinction? i ask because a couple of friends have been affected by this before in conti races, and it would be great to see that this is NOT a prohibited activity. now, it might not change what happens in a race, but at least we'd know what is acceptable according to the rules.

tetonrider

he would have walked, so he was going to start anyway.

i actually saw numerous riders with functional bikes walking.

CliffordK

There may be safety issues for not accepting food or drinks from spectators. If a spectator hated certain riders, teams, or countries, they could easily hand them drinks laced with amphetamines or anabolic steroids. Or, perhaps, just a good dose of staph aureus enterotoxin. Not enough to cause any harm, but it could easily knock a rider out of the race.

I would say that there is an advantage to all riders to minimize support vehicles buzzing along beside them and making dangerous passes. So, if accepting a few spectator bikes or wheels means fewer cars on the road, that may in fact be a benefit to all the riders.

As far as an unfair advantage, if Zack Allison was involved in a massive pileup, how many other riders needed spare bikes and didn't get them? How many of them passed up the old guy on the MTB?

Perhaps some local C&V clubs and cycle clubs could organize a legal "neutral support". Inspect bikes if necessary. Register them to identify legal owners, then stage a few spectators with legal share-bikes every few miles along the course. It could help the lonely riders with a flat or critical broken part, although it might be difficult to get a dozen together at a major crash site. Carry pedal wrenches?

CliffordK

Do pro road-race riders walk up hills?

There are, however, some hills that a walker or jogger might make as good of progress as a rider. With cleats? A 4K uphill finish would be tough on foot.

rankin116

Oh, ok. I assumed there would have been a time cut.

tetonrider

well, this guy was walking (started to) when he got the bike. he took of his shoes.

don't know about other pros, but i was in the 1/2 race and a bunch of cat 1s were reduced to walking.

there was, but he would have made it.

Doge

I can't send you a rule they can't get food from another team car. I am not aware of such rule, although it wouldn't surprise me if someone was reprimanded for it.

Here is the rule dealing with feeding and bikes. It does allow opposing team riders to share food / water. It is also what I see done, in front of referees. The typical method is a rider gets food and drink and distributes it to teammates. But may also distribute to others. It would be a technicality if a rider received it from an opponent vs. opponent's car.

https://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/R...-E_English.PDF
2.3.012 All riders may render each other such minor services as lending or exchanging food, drink, spanners or accessories. The lending or exchanging of tubular tyres or bicycles and waiting for a rider who has been dropped or involved in an accident shall be permitted only amongst riders of the same team. The pushing of one rider by another shall in all cases be forbidden, on pain of disqualification.

CliffordK

Uhhh... listening to the race commentaries, it apparently is not uncommon for leaders to NOT force a break-away when a race leader is down for a flat or minor mishap.

Now, not pushing ahead hard may not be the same as waiting, but not that different.

Duke of Kent

The fact that he asked an official is irrelevant.

The official doesn't make the rules. Once the story broke, the race jury should have DQ'd him, per your logic. Or he should have been DQ'd at the finish line.