The live blog is sometimes slow to load, so please give it chance, or maybe try refreshing the page if it’s really sluggish.
Live blog: When to take a nap during the Tour de France; Sky booed at team presentation + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Jul 06, 2018 07:47
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
27 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
chrisonabike 24 seconds ago
@Mr Blackbird isn't it "this pub survived two World Wars, but will be destroyed by this ludicrous, dangerous cycle lane, which nobody wants and which will only be used by illegal immigrants riding unlicensed electric motorbikes..." ?
Mr Blackbird 6 minutes ago
@Mr Blackbird The report on this case is on page 19 of today's Times. Maybe the more right wing rags didn't bother at all? It was on the BBC News website yesterday, but was not featured on this morning's Breakfast News.
chrisonabike 8 minutes ago
@Rendel Harris no no NO! Won't you think of blind pedestrians, who will be in danger of falling in, then being run over by the peloton, then drowning?! Not to mention people with limited mobility who might stumble in and then not be able to get out? Or just those walking around in a relaxed manner, not paying too much attention? No, what is needed is a dedicated area to support accessibility for all. We could call it a ... road! Those with sight impairment would doubtless be ok with that as they would be able to hear the motor vehicles (unlike those deadly silent cyclists). And they could get taxis also. In fact all those who *have to drive* could use it! Cyclists would have nothing to complain about, they could ride there if they don't get in the way of motor vehicles and come to a compete stop whenever they see a pedestrian looking like they might cross...
Rendel Harris 29 minutes ago
@HoarseMann I've probably given this too much thought, but alongside each of the bridges I was going to have little in and out ramps to allow cyclists to exit for the shops rather than be confined to a straight-through run.
Mr Blackbird 52 minutes ago
@kingleo Just picture a lovely character pub with all the original internal features. Baskets of flowers hanging outside. It serves an excellent selection of real ales, craft ales, quality lagers and quality ciders. Todays menu includes a ploughman's lunch, seafood platter and a vast range of sandwich fillings ; all made using locally sourced foods. But wait! A new cycle lane has just been constructed in front of the pub. It is far too dangerous to cross and enter the pub. You turn around and trudge home. Stopping at Tesco to buy a 4 pack of Carling.
chrisonabike 1 hour ago
@Hollis Jones as Rendel said, the key difference here is there were two strong pieces of evidence distinguishing this from "we all *know* they were aware of the cyclist", one of them a human witness. Outside that it's simply "but the prosecution cannot prove they didn't notice..." and legally that must fail. Like a "he said, she said" but where one of the sides is absent, because they're dead.
leedorney 1 hour ago
Having experienced this in Anglesey and most of it is unnecessary, it does give the driver a big lesson in 'looking extra', as travelling slower does that !
leedorney 1 hour ago
It's true, you aren't feeling yourself any favours wearing black/dark colours, BUT you've got to look, soo many dont and the campaign should be for motorist - look, simple as, it's not hard and drop the speed to, maybe if the police where actually outside rather than on Facebook looking for the naughty words/viewpoints, drivers would be caught speeding, not looking, pulling out, not braking in time, going through red lights, overtaking at a bad time, cutting up cyclists and a lot more..
wtjs 1 hour ago
@Rome73 There are still too many motor vehicles in the central Oxford Street area. There should be zero, except for delivery vehicles at proscribed... prescribed times
Rendel Harris 1 hour ago
@Hollis Jones The crucial difference is the fact that Richardson stopped, exited the vehicle, tried to pull Mr Mullins free and when he couldn't got back in and drove on. He knowingly, actively and voluntarily engaged in the harmful behaviour that caused Mr Mullins' death, which is what made it murder. The hit and run driver hasn't deliberately hit a cyclist and although driving away is of course utterly reprehensible it's only covered by the laws regarding failing to stop at the scene of an accident, which only attracts a six month prison sentence maximum. It's high time the law was changed so that firstly the penalties for failing to stop and render assistance are far higher and secondly so that if the medical evidence is that the victim would have survived with prompt assistance then the driver can be charged with manslaughter or murder. However as it stands murder requires evidence of malice aforethought with an intention to kill or to cause GBH resulting in death. Richardson clearly displayed this by resuming driving even though he knew Mr Mullins was stuck under his car; the hit and run driver in an "accident" didn't have that intention so can't be charged with murder however atrocious their behaviour after the event.
27 thoughts on “Live blog: When to take a nap during the Tour de France; Sky booed at team presentation + more”
That seems a bit harsh… I
That seems a bit harsh… I lose track, but haven’t we now all agreed that if there was no case to answer on Froome’s salbutamol matter, and the various governing bodies are all happy, then everything is copacetic…?
brooksby wrote:
I had to look that up.
Chateau!
davel wrote:
Are you sure you didn’t mean Gateau!
So if there’s no drug case to
So if there’s no drug case to answer for and no one in the Sky team has recently crashed/abused/tripped a popular rival, then the only thing left to blaim must be….
Brexit!
Disgusting behaviour from the
Disgusting behaviour from the alleged supporters of cycling. You could see the team were not impressed.
Pathetic. I hope Sky do
Pathetic. I hope Sky do really well in the Tour. And not just because I have a tenner on G. Each way, mind.
S_P_A_C_E_M_A_N wrote:
To win or to crash? 😉
Disgusting behaviour, such
Disgusting behaviour, such ignorant barbaric people. Team Sky can shove it in their faces by winning it.
This is what happens when the
This is what happens when the media, assisted by the UCI leaker, Hinault & others, feed the barbarism. We’ve seen it repeatedly on this website and many others. The sport is the poorer for it.
Vaughters is expressing concerns about security: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters
Thanks to all the haters for screwing things up, you fucking morons.
All this booing is pretty
All this booing is pretty poor, but no worse than being called a fucking moron for having a fact based differing opinion.
Go figure.
don simon wrote:
opinion
əˈpɪnjən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So you can’t really have a differing opinion about something that is fact. It is fact, that’s it. No question.
Obviously you can have an opinion about the methods used to reach that fact and apply the appropriate debate skills to discuss such a subject.
Martyn_K wrote:
opinion
əˈpɪnjən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So you can’t really have a differing opinion about something that is fact. It is fact, that’s it. No question.
Obviously you can have an opinion about the methods used to reach that fact and apply the appropriate debate skills to discuss such a subject.— don simon
Back out of the woodwork, are we?
WADA & UCI decided to drop charges as they weren’t able to do a reliable test. That is the fact. He hasn’t been proven innocent, just not guilty. You think he’s innocent based on that fact, I think that I’d be naive in thinking that the peloton is clean and that he’s had a lucky escape. If you can’t deal with that, it most certainly isn’t my problem. I will get more robust with responses hereon in.
[/quote] Back out of the
[/quote] Back out of the woodwork, are we? WADA & UCI decided to drop charges as they weren’t able to do a reliable test. That is the fact. He hasn’t been proven innocent, just not guilty. You think he’s innocent based on that fact, I think that I’d be naive in thinking that the peloton is clean and that he’s had a lucky escape. If you can’t deal with that, it most certainly isn’t my problem. I will get more robust with responses hereon in.[/quote]
Wrong.
WADA and the UCI never raised ANY charges, therefore there were no charges to drop. The FACT is that those bodies found an adverse test result that needed investigation and decided not to progress with the matter as evidence indicated that there is/ was no wrong doing. This is not my opinion as it has been detailed in all communications from the UCI & WADA.
Your blatant flaming and trolling regarding this matter is tiresome.
If you really think that he is guilty then i suggest you focus your energy on attaining a position or role within WADA or the UCI where you can officially progres your vendetta to reach an endpoint that is obviously badly needed by you. Good luck.
Martyn_K wrote:
I agree.
Jonathan Vaughters, definitely not a Sky fanboy, has a clearer view of the process than the morons. From the link I posted:
In this case, it was public, which is really unfortunate and whoever leaked it — because somebody inside the UCI leaked it — it’s just nasty, vindictive behaviour to do that,” he said. “It doesn’t actually allow the system to work in the way that it should in a case involving a restricted substance, as opposed to a banned substance.”
So before you all cry ‘foul’ and ask for beheading, bear in mind the… oh sod it I give up, you simply don’t give a shit about facts. <sigh>
And if you don’t like being called a moron try being a bit less moronic.
Martyn_K wrote:
Wrong.
WADA and the UCI never raised ANY charges, therefore there were no charges to drop. The FACT is that those bodies found an adverse test result that needed investigation and decided not to progress with the matter as evidence indicated that there is/ was no wrong doing. This is not my opinion as it has been detailed in all communications from the UCI & WADA.
Your blatant flaming and trolling regarding this matter is tiresome.
If you really think that he is guilty then i suggest you focus your energy on attaining a position or role within WADA or the UCI where you can officially progres your vendetta to reach an endpoint that is obviously badly needed by you. Good luck.
You’ll have no problem going into detail about what the evidence is then, will you? Repeating that there is evidence, isn’t evidence in itself. This moron is perfectly happy that the hard of thinking can’t stand that there is an opposing view.
Challenging a position is not rolling, so grow the fuck up. If you’re tired,you know what you can do too.
Keep on supporting Froome, I don’t fucking care. Let him race (UCIsay he can) I don’t fucking care.
I’m surprised it took so long to not raise charges after an AAF. You seem to think it was simple, 9 months says it wasn’t. Not being charged does not prove innocent.
Sad really.
Sad really.
Let’s just hope that all they
Let’s just hope that all they do is boo. If i was Froome i’d rather that than having piss thrown at me or even worse.
The best way to answer these people is to go and win the thing.
If Froome is on the podium for any stage or even at the end the meeting with the badger is going to be an interesting watch!
Or will he take his own
Or will he take his own advice and strike!
Sky should be twinned with
Sky should be twinned with Millwall FC – No one likes us, we don’t care!
In the meantime the Froome fans will be happy that he’s competing and the anti-Sky can please themselves by asking how if Froome won the Giro sans asthma nebuliser, why did he need one at last year’s tour?
The rest of us can just hope to enjoy some cracking sprint finishes, at least one successful breakaway and some beastly days in the mountains.
Froome needs to go on the
Froome needs to go on the counter attack and have a bottle of piss to squirt at ‘fans’.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
That’s not a bad idea at all. He should definitely make sure his bidons are clearly labelled though
.
StraelGuy wrote:
“Bleurghh..!! Don’t remember having asparagus last night!”
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
With or without salbutamol?
Sad shameful behaviour. Mob
Sad shameful behaviour. Mob mentality.
Eat Gateaux wearing your
Eat Gateaux wearing your chapeaux in the chateau on the plateau.
It is just strange that all
It is just strange that all other riders previously caught with AAFs remain so silent. Don’t they deserve equal treatment, i.e. to be exonerated?
Really fascinating and
Really fascinating and illuminating words from Jonathan Vaughters talking to The Cycling Podcast about Froome, anti-doping, WADA and more:
https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/a-pre-tour-de-france-ramble-part-two-episode-23
Those wishing to remain ignorant should not listen to in case they accidentally learn something.