Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.
December 15, 2017
December 14, 2017
December 13, 2017
December 12, 2017
  • Crash Bandicoot

    I’d be very interested in the financial side of things no doubt Bora had to get some $$$ from the UCI for their comedy of errors; luckily for them they’ve got the biggest name in the sport who is a fantastic classics rider as well so I’m sure the sponsors didn’t put them under too much pressure (heck those logos were played thousands of times in slow motion). On a side note Peter Sagan proving again and again that he is a really good guy.

    • David9482

      Agree, Sagan showing he’s a really classy rider and person. He could have spent the year publicly bashing the UCI’s Commissaire’s but instead focused on trying to improve the system.

      One question, did the article mention that there would be a timely appeals system in place? I mean, to make this system truly work you need an appeals process that can be resolved by the following morning’s stage. It would be relatively easy to enact as there is a full evening for people to gather information, process it and then have a hearing at 8 or 9pm OR 9am for 45 minutes before the stage (with option of team manager representing the rider). If I’m correct, it took a few hours before the public verified that Sagan had not elbowed Cavendish, or was it a full day? Either way, an appeals process gives people a few hours to process what happened.

      • Shane Stokes

        Hi David, there was no mention of that in today’s announcement. We’ll try to look into it when we can. Thanks!

        • David9482

          Ok thanks.

          Updated news that Cavendish’s team is upset at this announcement… what? Why? I reviewed the video a dozen times and it really looks like Sagan was not at fault.

          • DaveRides

            They are upset that they didn’t get a say in it.

            This is rather bizarre, since I seem to recall that they got the opportunity to have their say quite early in the piece. In fact, that they were allowed to influence the commissaires into overturning a decision but Sagan was not allowed to answer the charge is most of the reason that we ended up in this situation.

  • RainMaster

    Shane, any feeling (or actual statements from the UCI) about the source(s) of the video evidence? Oftentimes, there is no “official” video, but a spectator (or other unofficial source such as course marshals) video shows up several days later.

    • Tim Rowe

      We had that a few years back with the CX champs. We had to make a decision based on seeing the footage on tiny little phone screens. As soon we that footage was available on larger screens off-site we continued the discussion, but UCI’s stance is, without question, there can be no appeal/change in the results. The rules need to be fixed. You just can’t have a system where you say “well you didn’t resolve it within 15 minutes”, after even damning evidence comes about. The sport needs to evolve, and in this area it’s held back.

      • DaveRides

        The problem with trying to run a “all decisions are final” system is that it was not actually respected in practice by the UCI commissaires during the Tour de France. The pretence needs to be dropped and a system that works introduced.

        Had that been respected in the first case and the Dimension Data team manager told firmly that the Sagan incident had already been ruled on and a decision made (relegate Sagan and apply a points penalty) then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        Later in the Tour, the “all decisions are final” rule was disrespected again, when the water bottle penalties were issued and then rescinded. You would think that after the chaos on stage five that they would have been very careful to get things right for the rest of the race.

  • DaveRides

    Smart move by the UCI to cave in. If it had been ruled on by CAS, the loss (on procedural grounds, the Sagan disqualification was never completed) would have been humiliating for them and likely to have included a somewhat humiliating form of results management.

    Two things I picked out from the joint statement:
    – There are no details regarding what will happen or measurable targets for when it will happen. With the UCI’s history, it should therefore be assumed that nothing will happen until it actually does. At most, I would expect a communique to commissaires reminding them of proper procedures.
    – The UCI has worded their part of the statement very carefully to admit they got it wrong without actually admitting they got it wrong and Sagan/Denk also treaded very carefully around that. This suggests to me that the UCI paid them to keep that out of the settlement.

    I just had a look on the UCI website and it seems that one step has already been taken – Philippe Mariën (the UCI’s chief commissaire at the Tour) is no longer on the Commissaires Commission. The updated page no longer lists which discipline each member of the Commission represents, perhaps out of embarrassment at the UCI appointing a cyclocross commissaire as the chief commissaire for a grand tour.

BACK TO TOP
16 NEW ARTICLES
December 15, 2017
December 14, 2017
December 13, 2017
December 12, 2017