Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.

Your Friday Daily News Digest

by Mark Zalewski

September 23, 2016


In today’s CyclingTips Daily News Digest: Sagan doubles wins in Eneco Tour; Colbrelli wins Coppa Sabatini; Wout van Aert, Sophie de Boer win first World Cup in Vegas; Boonen crashes out of Eneco Tour; Thomas Voeckler will retire after 2017 Tour de France; UCI pledges to improve rider security at races; How Cross Vegas became a World Cup; Lawsuit could put Lance Armstrong “out on the street”; Helmets do not cause injuri; “Hey pot, this is the kettle calling …”.

Sagan doubles wins in Eneco Tour

by CyclingTips

Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) is looking more and more like he could defend his rainbow stripes, winning a second sprint at the Eneco Tour in as many days, beating André Greipel (Lotto Soudal) and Alexander Kristoff (Katusha), as well as taking the overall lead in the race from Rohan Dennis (BMC).

“I didn’t know I’d won because it was very close with André and after I was waiting for the final result, but I’m very happy with the win because it’s another case of very good timing with the head wind finish,” said Sagan. “It was a nervous sprint at the end and I had to hold my line next to Démare, but that’s sprinting.”

Sagan takes the leader’s jersey into tomorrow’s team time trial, which could play a big role in the overall.

“I’m happy, it’s good that I got some more seconds from today. We want to make a good team time trial and do our best and we’ll see how it goes.”


Stage 4: Aalter > St-Pieters-Leeuw - Stage Result

Thursday 22nd September 2016

1. sk
2. de
Lotto Soudal
3. no
KRISTOFF Alexander
Team Katusha

Today’s feature image shows cyclocross World Champion Wout van Aert ahead of the first round of the UCI World Cup in “fabulous” Las Vegas.

  • Rob

    1. Sagan is unstoppable at the moment. Can he pull off back to back rainbow jerseys?
    2. I predict a new cycling quiz show “Tommy V on TV” with segments including “Guess who’s tongue this is?” and “Should we get in the break today?”.
    3. Even Armstrong got tired of talking about Armstrong….so then he interviewed the guy who played Armstrong in a movie about Armstrong to talk about Armstrong.

    • Dave

      The answer to both of the questions in (2) is always another question – “has the live broadcast started yet?”

  • Something odd, in my reading, of the helmet safety summary written here.

    CT’s piece sounds like, ‘Reasons against compulsory helmet laws.’ But the original article (and other reports I’ve seen) argues, ‘Reasons for compulsory helmet laws.’ Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, or putting the contrary argument. But it’s best to summarise accurately, surely?

    • Dave

      Both the Canberra Times editorial and the CyclingTips comment (CT acronym is useless here!) look to me like they acknowledge the benefits of helmet usage for injury prevention point of view, while also putting forward the case that there are other reasons that helmet legislation is not an ideal scenario.

      The Canberra Times editorial goes on to acknowledge that making laws and repealing laws are not equal and opposite actions.

      Perhaps CyclingTips would like to edit their comment for clearer reading, and clarify whether it is the writer’s personal opinion or a company position?

    • MadBlack

      Compulsory helmet laws are the biggest deterrent to Joe and Jane Bloggs riding bikes in Australia. At the speeds town bikes are ridden a helmet serves no purpose and is simply superfluous. The lack of participation of the general public in cycling activities is part of the reasons why there’s such antipathy by Australian drivers towards cyclists. I call on legislators to abandon compulsory helmet laws and embrace the most efficient and sustainable mode of transport.

      • Geoff

        This is the bit that, for some reason, neither politicians nor the medical fraternity seem to be able to get their minds around. The majority of bike riders are, given correctly built cycling infrastructure and correct behaviour on the part of other road users extremely unlikely to ever fall off their bikes or get hit by another road user.
        I will always wear a helmet, because of the speeds I ride at. Mountain-bikers are probably best off wearing helmets, because of the risks of things going wrong when attempting technical manoeuvres. etc. But for the average Joe, riding down to the shops or a couple of km to the office, the likelihood of a helmet ever being called upon to do its job is close to zero.
        I’ll second your call!

        • velocite

          I have never doubted that helmets reduce head injuries but that on its own is not justification for making them mandatory. The article contains lots of numbers but never makes a reasoned case. It was based on a ‘meta-study’, which always makes it difficult to approach the actual data. Also, it was presented at a road safety conference which seemed to be doctor-centric, which was the problem with the introduction of the mandatory law in Australia. Governments seem to quite like introducing restrictions, especially if they think it makes them look good, so when a panel of doctors made the recommendation they complied, at a time when cyclists had no voice and were a very small section of the electorate. There was no consideration of the importance of cycling to health, the transport system and the environment at the time.

          I wear a helmet myself even in areas where they are not mandatory, but I’ve also *not* ridden a city bike because of the helmet rule. In the cbd and inner suburban areas speeds are lower so the risk is more that you’ll be run over by a car than that you’ll plunge into a roadside tree, in which case a helmet won’t help. But having to wear one may deter you from tooling in to work or the cafe.

          Anyhow, I third MadBlack’s less verbose comment.

          • Geoff

            I think there is another aspect that doesn’t get considered, especially in the medical (meta) studies: While the probability that a helmet will reduce injury is considered, I have never seen anyone consider what the probability is of being involved in a crash where a head injury is possible.

            Good point about the “meta-study” bit.

            I agree totally about helmets reducing or preventing head injuries – I wrote off bike last year, and apart from my bike, my helmet and face took most of the impact. I was unconscious (I have no recollection of the crash, ambulance ride or my time in emergency). I got away with no head injuries, but had lacerations to my face which required plastic surgery. My helmet was a total mess. I think I’ll go on the basis that my helmet prevented some rather serious head injuries :-)

          • Wily_Quixote

            Totally agree.
            I think that a correctly fitted mandatory helmet is a good idea for kids on the road but for adults it ought to be optional.

            The idea of a city bike scheme with compulsory helmets is among the worst decision I have seen a council make in some time.
            Studies in London (not the most bike friendly place in the world) show a very low accident rate for hire city bikes.

      • MadBlack – now I know your opinion. That’s cool!

        But I know of no strong evidence for this, though it may exist. Yet my point is not what the law should be (I don’t have time for such a detailed discussion). But rather, I reckon we need to understand what the research says by summarising it as accurately as possible.

      • Superpilot

        I support your right to your opinion, but the single biggest deterrent to people riding bikes is that they feel it is unsafe.

        I have never seen a poll showing helmets as the number one reason. Sure, the need for helmets may combine with a number of factors to bring that feeling of lack of safety, fear of cars, lack of infrastructure, but it is not helmets alone.

        Rest assured, I think helmet laws are stupid.

        Clearly the reduction in cycling coincided with the introduction of helmet laws, however I think the majority of the reduction was due to the explosion in family car ownership, many single car families got a second car, and the price of vehicles became more affordable also.

        • Wily_Quixote

          There is a small phone poll done by a an anti-MHL advocate (Chris Rissell) which shows that helmets are a strongh factor but several more studies citing safety as the biggest deterrent.

      • Damien Cook

        BS! Fall off hit head, head sore or cracked open. You do not have to be moving even. Take a tumble getting off your head is the pendulum it hits the ground very hard and as there is no forward momentum to slide a bit of impact away. Clunk! Like a one-punch, you may be in trouble. Have a bloody look at bike paths on a sunny Sunday. Families out everywhere all helmeted up. Trendoids may not like their hair messed up a bit, most others just get on with it. More cyclists now than 10-20 years ago your ‘tale’ of lack of participation is absolute crap. Put your helmets on and enjoy the ride or put your seat belt on and drive the car.

        • MadBlack

          By your logic we should all have to wear helmets whilst walking. And knowing the nanny culture in Australia that just may happen one day. But nobody wants to take away your right to wear a helmet I’m merely saying it has to be a choice. If the public has the option of wearing a helmet the uptake of cycling as a mode of transport will increase dramatically. And you rightly point out the biggest problem in Australia which is that cycling of families is confined to bike paths on Sundays. I grew up like it to be every day, kids riding to schools instead

      • Wily_Quixote

        Mandatory Helmet laws are not main reason why people don’t cycle but it is a reason – well down the list.

        The studies that have been done on this matter show consistently that it is fear of traffic.

        the reason why parents don’t let their kids ride to school is ‘stranger danger’ or the reason cited above – perceived danger.

  • Gavin Adkins

    Great win by de Boer at Cross Vegas. Worth watching the replay of the last 2 laps.

  • jules

    looking forward to the US Olympic Committee suing all its athletes who have been caught doping for fraud and demanding they return the value of govt. support they’ve received. but Lance.

    • Dave

      USOC is not government funded.

      • jules

        neither is US Postal.

        • Dave

          The team or the US Postal Service itself?

          The team is not because the USPS sponsorship was withdrawn at the end of 2004 and the team dissolved a couple of years later.

          Taxpayer funding makes up about 7% of the US Postal Service’s income, making it one of the most efficient agencies of the US Government.

      • Superpilot

        Are they privately funded by sponsorship and contributions?

        • jules

          Yes. It seems that they are not even a govt institution

    • velocite

      Is this case based on a legal interpretation of a contract, or a consideration of whether US Postal got value out of its sponsorship? I wonder what benefit they were expecting – it has always seemed odd to me that a postal service would allocate marketing dollars to bicycle racing. But if it was publicity they were wanting they got that beyond their wildest dreams – and it’s continuing!

      • jules

        /bush lawyer hat on

        you can’t sue someone for just breaching a contract. you need to demonstrate that there were damages that resulted from the breach. the damages are what any compensation awarded to you are based on.

        USPS are arguing that they suffered damages from the fallout of Lance-gate. as you said – what a load of complete horse shit. I needn’t go on. who seriously believes people stopped using USPS after Lance got caught?

        • Dave

          You need a cowboy lawyer hat for this, not a bush lawyer hat.

          They aren’t suing LA for a tort, they are sung him under an American law for fraud which sounds like a rather intriguing combination of a civil suit, a criminal trial and a lawyer’s interpretation of what a good old bounty hunt might look like without guns.

          LA did get sued for something more basic by SCA Promotions, the prize indemnity company which underwrote his bonus on behalf of the USPS team. He sued them for withholding his bonus because they thought he was cheating, they settled for the outstanding $5M amount plus $2.5M of LA’s legal costs. After the UCI voided his wins, they then returned the favour and sued him for all that money plus legal costs, which led to a $10M settlement last year.

  • Laurens

    Fantastic news: after two years of rider’s safety really getting out of hand, there will now be a group of people who will look into it. And maybe even think about it. And probably talk about it. I don’t race but I would feel so much safer already!
    (end sarcasm)

  • Andy Logan

    re Those two Astana riders, I thought there was a UCI rule about that (which is never enforced)

    • Dave

      Correct on both the rule and the non-enforcement.

    • JBS

      Right on both counts.

      That’s clear case of breaking the rule. Both riders should’ve been DQ’d.

      • Anto, NZ

        Yeah, but it’s Astana! Different rules.

        • Rondje

          If they followed that rule they had to DQ half the peloton. Allot of riders where seen riding there or on other points where not aloud.

  • velocite

    “Boonen was busy eating when his wheel passed over a hole in the coating. His wheel was stolen and Tom dropped,”



Pin It on Pinterest

August 17, 2017
August 16, 2017
August 15, 2017
August 14, 2017