“I fight to survive” – Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers; Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training; Boulting, Millar and Kennaugh go golfing; Van Aert fined for giving Sagan the finger + more

49 thoughts on ““I fight to survive” – Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers; Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training; Boulting, Millar and Kennaugh go golfing; Van Aert fined for giving Sagan the finger + more”

1. The fine for the bird – I

   The fine for the bird – I understand; but the points docking for Sagan is harsh!. A little argy-bargy is to be expected in a busy sprint, Sagan wasn’t pushing anyone towards a barrier, and they’ve now just ended the Green Jersey battle. Sagan’s only hope is if Sam doesn’t survive the alps!

   It was a great finish, everyone stayed up-right, fastest guy won!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think docking is the wrong
     I think docking is the wrong phrase. He was disqualified from the stage, so lost all the points he gained, including those at the intermediate sprint. That’s my understanding, anyway.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • No – it was coincidence that

       No – it was coincidence that the points he was penalised happened to be the same as the number he won at the intermediate.

       You’re right, though, that what has really holed his challenge is not the points he was docked, but the ones he would have won for coming second (or even 4th if he’d finished there due to not being able to pass WvA.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • mdavidford wrote:

         No – it was coincidence that the points he was penalised happened to be the same as the number he won at the intermediate.

         You’re right, though, that what has really holed his challenge is not the points he was docked, but the ones he would have won for coming second (or even 4th if he’d finished there due to not being able to pass WvA.

         — mdavidford

         Apologies, you are right. In my defence, I was repeating what they said on ITV4 last night!

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • The points deduction wasn’t

     The points deduction wasn’t an arbitrary thing, though – it’s required by the rules – if you’re relegated for illegal contact in a sprint you get docked a quarter of the winner’s points.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • A few weeks after another

     A few weeks after another sprinter was in intensive care because of ” a little argy bargy” 

     Better to show zero tolerance than risk another incident like that.

     Sagan should have known better.  He ended his own Green Jersey battle – there was no need for that barge – it was purely to gain advantage.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • He used his head to shove van
     He used his head to shove van Aert over to give him space !! its illegal contact in the sprint and is against the rules, we should be actually be applauding van Aerts skill at staying upright, because that could easily have caused him to lose control & crash, and at that speed a crash would have been a big one, plus it almost certainly impeded van Aerts sprint. Sagan can have no complaints about that relegation imo.

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. More furious motorists not

   More furious motorists not able to make to shortest more direct (most likely) unnecessary journey possible.

   https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/school-run-return-sparks-claims-18907014

   usual mutliple think of the elderly and disabled comments, one person does point out that take away the cars that don’t really need to be there and its easier for those groups to drive.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Or this one:

     Or this one:

     Neighbours furious at huge detour to park outside homes after entire street transformed into ‘Covid-secure’ cycle path

     https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12617669/road-closed-poole-residents-active-travel-scheme/

     RESIDENTS have been left fuming as they have to take a big detour to park outside their homes after their street was transformed into a “Covid-secure” cycle path.

     Large planters were installed on Churchfield Road in Poole, Dorset, to block off the street, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to use it safely – and adhering to social distancing.

     Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council has closed the road to cars as part of the active travel scheme to encourage people to walk and cycle more during the coronavirus pandemic.

     But frustrated neighbours say they feel the move has been implemented to “punish” motorists and are complaining about having to take a “huge detour” to park in front of their homes.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Huge detour = 1 mile = 3

       Huge detour = 1 mile = 3 minutes travel at 20mph.

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. Pretty harsh penalty I think.
   Pretty harsh penalty I think. I’m rooting for Bennett to win the green jersey but would have preferred it to happen on the road and not in the stewards office. Sprints usually have a bit of contact, it’s like the dark arts of the rugby scrum. Are we saying zero contact is permitted? How far from the line are they able to change their sprint lane? How many moves are they allowed?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • No, we’re saying you can’t

     No, we’re saying you can’t deliberately barge and headbutt someone out of the way – it’s pretty obvious looked at objectively.

     Luckily van Aert wasn’t injured. The Groenewegen/Jokobsen incident is quickly forgotten I see.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Interestingly on the French
   Interestingly on the French TV discussion both Laurent Jalabert and Thomas Voeckler thought it was 50/50 in the sprint, tho’ Yohann Offredo didn’t agree…

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Van Aert was moving off his

   Van Aert was moving off his line to the right and risked pushing Sagan into the barriers where all hell would’ve broken loose. So Sagan gave him a nudge, Its racing! 

   Sagan should rightfully feel agrieved at that decision, it’s BS. Might as well stop all sprints and make every stage a mountain stage, but no going over 40km its too dangerous and no going anywhere near another rider in case you hurt their feelings. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • WvA did move to the right,

     WvA did move to the right, but that was well before Sagan tried to go through a gap that wasn’t there. Sagan chose a position on the barriers, and then found himself boxed in with no way to go around – that’s racing – sometimes you just have to accept that you’ve been outmanouevred, and not just try to barge through regardless.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’ll be honest I thought Van

     I’ll be honest I thought Van Aert moved off his line. Not necessarily to block anyone but he clearly did move over looking at the helicopter shot. Sagan over did the barging but it’s understandable considering he had probably already committed to the (admittedly small) but existing gap. Suprised no one else picked it up

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • There’s a lot of lateral

       There’s a lot of lateral movement in most sprints just from the sheer amount of power they’re putting through the cranks. I’ve often wondered if the natural side-to-side movement that generates is perhaps reigned in slightly less as sprinters sense a rival coming up on their shoulder. It’s all part of the art I’d imagine? Certainly Bennett moved as everything closed together. Seeing as no-one crashed or was injured I’d much rather see a fine and let them sort it out on the next sprint stage.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Right decision by the

     Right decision by the commisaires. Any move Van Aert made was fractional. He is a pretty clean sprinter. Sagan went the wrong way and decided to make the room himself.

     As a sprinter myself, I have never seen the point in risking broken bones and bikes by changing my line, but then I have never sprinted at anything above national level.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • That’s right. Sagan’s excuses

       That’s right. Sagan’s excuses are pretty pathetic – he should have just fessed up to barging and headbutting, and accepted the penalty.

       His argument was that in the Cav incident he was in front, and this time he was behind. However the common denominator both times is that the physical aggression came from Sagan.

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news

   https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12631301/toddler-hit-dragged-cyclist-london-park/

   Mum claims daughter, 1, was ‘hit and dragged by cyclist’ in park horror

   Freya Clancy, who is just 16 months old, was walking on a pedestrian path in Victoria Park, East London, when a cyclist travelling at “around 10mph hit her head on”.

   They’ve illustrated it with a picture of a huge wide shared-use roadway…?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • There’s so much rotten in

     There’s so much rotten in that article. Its just one big click-bait hate piece.

     >Cyclist was doing 10mph, but ‘came flying out of the gate’ ?

     >Child was apparently hit head-on but caught her arm in the spokes?

     Insofar as I can tell, it basically breaks down to a failure to Parent.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • The cyclist fled the scene
       The cyclist fled the scene whilst also speaking to an off duty police officer whilst still in the park.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • “I ran over and pushed the

       “I ran over and pushed the woman off the bike […]  she kept shouting that I had assaulted her.”

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The video of the cyclist

     The video of the cyclist doing the rounds for the above. Lets just say she comes across as the person who would always blame someone else no matter whose fault it was for anything. Although still I see the Sun allows racist comments about her. 

     However 10mph, dragged along with arm in the spokes until screeched to a halt. Some embellishement from a  distraught mother I suspect on the latter. And the speed is well within guidelines for shared paths although could have been higher or lower as I suspect I couldn’t guestimate well. 

     Edit, Forgot to mention I’m glad the child is ok and nothing serious occured. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

       The video of the cyclist doing the rounds for the above. Lets just say she comes across as the person who would always blame someone else no matter whose fault it was for anything. 

       — AlsoSomniloquism

       A bit harsh; all we see is a young lady who’s just been shoved off her bike by an irate mother and being harrassed by possibly the third most obnoxious person on Earth.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • She also states she can’t

         She also states she can’t report it because she doesn’t have a phone, then when she is offered the use of one she gets her out her bag. Simple lie exposed. As I said in this case, both sides don’t come out of it well and only real plus is the child has nothing more serious then some scratches.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Im very surprised no-one has

     Im very surprised no-one has yet mentioned the moron who made the video who was doing his best to inflame the situation.  He seems to be the biggest jerk in all of this.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • No, I would still argue the

       No, I would still argue the cyclist is although the videographer did need to brush up on his law.

       Her “I don’t have a phone” to “ohh, it means i have to get it out of the bag which is the trouble” shows how much she cared a child was hurt in her vicinity. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12631301/toddler-hit-dragged-cyclist-london-park/

     Mum claims daughter, 1, was ‘hit and dragged by cyclist’ in park horror

     Freya Clancy, who is just 16 months old, was walking on a pedestrian path in Victoria Park, East London, when a cyclist travelling at “around 10mph hit her head on”.

     — brooksby

     They’ve illustrated it with a picture of a huge wide shared-use roadway…?

     Reminds me of the very similar story in the Bristol Evening Post about twenty years ago, with a mother complaining about a cyclist mowing down her child on the Bristol/Bath path and how all cyclists should take more care.  The paper of course, took the opportunity to slag off cyclists.  I was concerned enough about the cyclist’s actions to get in touch with the reporter, and discovered that the facts were rather different to those as printed.

     The woman and her small son were picking blackberries and he was on one side of the path and she on the other.  When she saw the cyclist approaching, she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him.  The cyclist stopped, checked the little boy was ok and rode on.  None of that was reported.

     In this case, the parent was at least 50% to blame for allowing a small uncontrolled child loose on a shared use path.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • she called her son to her,

       she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him. 

       This happened to me once on an ordinary quiet road on the outskirts of Garstang- the mother and little *** were on the left pavement, he was on a scooter- I’m assuming it was a ‘he’. For no reason I could detect the little *** shot straight across the road at right angles, on the scooter. I braked, went straight over the bars, and broke or cracked some ribs. As ill-luck would have it, I soon contracted a cough which the ribs made very painful.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • TBH, I slow right down when

         TBH, I slow right down when children are ahead of me on shared use paths and / or near the edge of the pavement and wait until the parent has them under some control. This is especially done if they are on scooters or bikes as they turn as they turn their head so can easily “move right angles” if they turn to look behind them at a noise. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Likewise. This is part of
           Likewise. This is part of realistic hazard awareness.

         • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

           TBH, I slow right down when children are ahead of me on shared use paths and / or near the edge of the pavement and wait until the parent has them under some control. This is especially done if they are on scooters or bikes as they turn as they turn their head so can easily “move right angles” if they turn to look behind them at a noise. 

           — AlsoSomniloquism

           Which is fair enough, and what I do, but it doesn’t absolve the parent of blame, whatever the cyclist does.

         • I was replying to wtjs with

           I was replying to wtjs with him calling a kid a *** for doing something which kids do. He was either going too fast or too close for those injuries. 

           I’m not absolving parents of any blame, just treat children as you would a dog or other animal, especially as we are essentially quiet compared to a car so no noise, no danger. 

           I did 50-50 on the parent when the child cycled into the adult pedestrian reported a few months ago, were you doing the same? It was pretty much the same thing as happened in the Scum story including a parent immediately agressive and blaming the adult involved. The difference is that the child was on a bike and hit the pedestrian. 

         • Most parents have been there.

           Most parents have been there. Anyone operating machinery (fuel or human powered) needs to be aware of this in the public space. We all know the HWC changes (proposed) regarding liability. Perhaps there is a further liability heirarchy regarding the age of those involved….

         • I would have thought that

           I would have thought that blame rests between the two involved parties – eg the child and the rider.

           It’s absurd to apportion blame to the child, therefore it sits with the rider

           It’s always tempting to say that “parents should have control over their children” concerning collisions, but our motivation for that usually rests on “I don’t want to have to consider something unpredictable when driving/riding/scooting/skating/running that will make me go slower than I want.”

           As a rider/driver, there is never a situation where I can assume that a child is under the parent’s  “full control” (whatever that is – I don’t even know what that would look like). Therefore it is I that have to mitigate the risk. This is by slowing down, and being able to stop in a safe and controlled manner in the space I can see  (and indeed in this case predict) to be clear.

         • Captain Badger wrote:

           I would have thought that blame rests between the two involved parties – eg the child and the rider.

           It’s absurd to apportion blame to the child, therefore it sits with the rider

           — Captain Badger

           That doesn’t follow – you’re confusing fault with blame. The fault may split between the child and the rider, and it may be absurd to blame the child for their part of the fault, but the rider is still only to blame for their own part of the fault. The child’s part of the fault doesn’t transfer to the rider – it’s just blameless.

         • Interesting nuance, and

           Interesting nuance, and certainly worth an exploration.

           I would say that fault and blame are interchangeable here as both terms would suggest responsibility. 

           It was indeed the child’s act to walk (toddle, totter, etc) into the path of the rider, but I wouldn’t say that would be “fault”, as at that age they can’t be expected to recognise that path.

         • To take an example, some of

           To take an example, some of the keys on my keyboard no longer respond reliably – I sometimes have to press 2 or 3 times for the character to appear. The keyboard definitely has a fault, but it’s absurd to say it’s blameworthy.

         • Ah I see, yes. The key is at

           Ah I see, yes. The key is at fault as it is not doing what it should, or what it was designed or manufactured for. It is not fulfilling it’s “raison d’etre”. But it has no agency of it’s own, so it is blameless. Fault is used here in a functional perspective. This is how I would summarise the distinction you are making.

           However there is no fault (functional error) with the child’s action. They are moving from A to B. Without the presence of the rider there is no issue

           The same could be said obversely with the rider, however, (and this is where blame/responsibility comes in) the rider is in the position of responsibility on 2 counts

           1. being in control of the machine that increases the risk to others
           2. being an adult that can be expected to predict conflict due to their actions

           I do see your distinction, however I wouldn’t agree that it is an appropriate one in this context, and I would say that for the pruposes of this situation fault/blame/responsibility could all be used to express the same quality.

            

         • The distinction I would make

           The distinction I would make is that fault is something you seek to correct; blame is something you judge and/or punish.

           The child’s behaviour is at fault if they misjudged the situation and took action that was inappropriate to it. However, they can’t be blamed for that if they’re too young to understand, or haven’t been given the appropriate schooling. You can seek to correct the fault as they grow up by teaching them about road safety, risk, etc.

           The rider is at fault if they haven’t taken reasonable measures to avoid putting others at risk, including allowing for the possibility that children might act unpredictably. They can also be blamed if they are at fault in this way, since they should know better.

           Reducing it all to ‘blame’ tends to lead to the assumption that ‘someone must be to blame’. That then potentially leads to absurd situations where (to stick with the current protagonists) a rider has taken all reasonable measures to avoid risk, and a collision still occurs, and the inevitable conclusion is that the rider must be ‘to blame’.

         • I don’t see the childs

           I don’t see the childs behaviour as being at fault. The child was doing what children do. There would be no reading of the situation from the child’s perspective greater than “I am here, I want to be there, I will now take action for that to happen” (I’m assuming a very young child – eg that in OP).

           We expect more of the rider. The collision could be said to be caused by both paths crossing at the same point in time – both would be legitimate actions if at different points in time. The fault/blame/responsibility (and I know they can be emotive terms) would lie with the rider, as the ability to prevent a collision needs agency that the child just cannot be expected to exhibit, so the rider must act on behalf of the child.

           This by the way is exactly the same (in my opinion) if the rider is replaced with a driver

         • I think we just have

           I think we just have different definitions of ‘fault’ – to me it’s an explanatory factor that contributes to a situation, that you would look to correct – in this case, by educating the child. It doesn’t involve any moral or emotive judgement. That’s not really relevant to the point I was making, though.

           The point was that it’s wrong (albeit it’s a common response) to say ‘we can’t blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider’. Any blame attached to the rider should be assessed on its own merits. Sometimes no-one is deserving of blame, or only a small amount of blame is merited, even when a serious situation occurs.

         • Yes, that’s why I’m at pains

           Yes, that’s why I’m at pains (and I know it seems semantic) to define terms. Fault/blame etc are emotive words which is why I’m keen to avoid using them in relation to a child, particularly a young one. Again, they have done nothing wrong, they have simply wandered from A to B.

           I think it’s absolutely correct to say ‘we can’t blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider’, (bearing in mind that “blame” is emotive – perhaps responsible is clearer here). The person with full agency here is the rider, riding in the public space where children are likely to be. The old mantra of being able to stop safely and under control in the space that you can see to be clear is key. The responsibility for any collision lies with the rider.

       • I remember distinctly doing

         I remember distinctly doing this at the age of about 3, in front of a car. It’s one of my earliest memories. I might have been a little ****, I’ve certainly grown up since and am now quite a considerable ****. But that wasn’t the reason why.

         Well done for avoiding him, and at least there’s no more lasting damage than a great story to tell. But kids do what kids do, they’re unpredictable.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Apparently one requires the

     Apparently one requires the reading skills of a 9 year old to navigate an article from The Sun. Having just read the link I can see what they mean. It’s like writing for, well, children; simple statements, large pictures to create emotion and to illustrate statements i.e. ‘there was a big red house in the forest’ (show picture of big red house in a forest) Lots of obvious contradiction and a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the story without any nuance. And there is always a sympathetic hook (a child is great) to get the 9 year old reader’s attention. And then the baddie – preferably someone from an ‘out’ group so they can easily be stereotyped. Like a witch, or a cyclist. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’m definitely slowing up; it

     I’m definitely slowing up; it’s only just occurred to me that if this had been a car, the driver would have been absolved of all blame and the mother charged with neglect and recklessly endangering her child.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Today’s Private Eye (#1530),

   Today’s Private Eye (#1530), page 34:

   TOUR DE FRANCE LATEST

   The organisers of this year’s Tour de France have announced a plan to ensure that the race goes smoothly despite the international pandemic.

   Each team has developed its own protocols to guarantee that they don’t get a positive Covid test.

   Said one team manager, “We’re issuing each rider with a jiffy bag full of clean swab samples, which can be handed over to the officials for testing in the lab.  We are very confident this method will work, because it’s always worked for us before.”

   Said another, “On our team bus we have all the equipment needed to do a total transfusion of a cyclists’s nasal mucus, and it only takes a record-breaking five minutes.”

   Other methods for doging the Covid-19 testers include: having replacement noses buried in the forest sections of the Tour, and fresh pairs of couhg-free lungs strategically hidden along the roadside during the alpine stages.

   Said one of the Tour favourites, “One thing’s for sure – we won’t be caught.”

   Winking to the camera, he added, “For the reputation of the sport, it’s important we keep our noses clean.”

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. “we have all the equipment

   “we have all the equipment needed to do a total transfusion of a cyclists’s nasal mucus”

   Funny old world – might be just me, but almost everything about that seems slightly disturbing and just raises so many questions…. 

   Log In or Register to post comments