World Champs 2022 (SPOILERS)

[matticus]

pushing them down the stairs like a Met Copper

Did that happen?

 

[rich p]

https://cyclingtips.com/2022/09/video-footage-emerges-of-van-der-poel-hotel-incident/

 

[Adam4868]

Are teenagers annoying ? Without doubt,I've two and there currently a 9 out of 10 on the "I want to throttle them" scale.
But chasing two young girls is never a good look.
The videos and recordings of the incident don't really show much.But I enjoyed the reviews of the hotel by his fans lol.

View: https://twitter.com/kaydenteuling/status/1574063139771260929?t=itWn5_dF-LEZlg1Hl_kk_g&s=19

 

[Dogtrousers]

But chasing two young girls is never a good look.
The videos and recordings of the incident don't really show much.

I haven't seen these videos but I'm imagining that they are sped up and accompanied by the Benny Hill theme.

 

[Adam4868]

This will do....move on 😁
M vd Poel: "I regret it. I admit that I was wrong. I shouldn't have done it. Unfortunately it has happened. I should have informed someone. I thought that I could solve it myself, which turned out completely wrong. I can't change it unfortunately."

 

[mjr]

Strewth! What a crazy way to bin a race. I think he's been ... rather unfortunate there. Has there been a crazier night-before incident leading to a rider withdrawing from a top-tier race??

I think I remember some 1990s rider jumping out of a first floor window to avoid reporters or a jealous husband or something and injuring an ankle for a DNS the next day. I think sleeping tablets may have been involved, it may have been a spring classic and a Dutch rider. Can anyone name that rider in three?

 

[matticus]

I think I remember some 1990s rider jumping out of a first floor window to avoid reporters or a jealous husband or something and injuring an ankle for a DNS the next day. I think sleeping tablets may have been involved, it may have been a spring classic and a Dutch rider. Can anyone name that rider in three?

... van ... ??

 

[matticus]

This will do....move on 😁
M vd Poel: "I regret it. I admit that I was wrong. I shouldn't have done it. Unfortunately it has happened. I should have informed someone. I thought that I could solve it myself, which turned out completely wrong. I can't change it unfortunately."

Yes. That is a much better statement, and to me sounds both honest and wise.

Meanwhile - in case we're not moving on - overnight I saw several credible sources state there is NO video evidence of physical contact with the two girls. Only of the chase (with Benny Hill music redacted, I believe).

There is transcription of the dialogue between Matty and the parent, where he denies any contact, and tells them to call the police. (that's been reported in numerous places, probably including this thread).
So RIGHT NOW, this one-man jury is still out ...

 

[Adam4868]

Yes. That is a much better statement, and to me sounds both honest and wise.

Meanwhile - in case we're not moving on - overnight I saw several credible sources state there is NO video evidence of physical contact with the two girls. Only of the chase (with Benny Hill music redacted, I believe).

There is transcription of the dialogue between Matty and the parent, where he denies any contact, and tells them to call the police. (that's been reported in numerous places, probably including this thread).
So RIGHT NOW, this one-man jury is still out ...

Never a good look though,a big fella chasing two young girls.

 

[matticus]

Never a good look though,a big fella chasing two young girls.

Now being discussed in NACA. The place for endless debates on what exactly is "a good look".

 

[Dogtrousers]

Now back to Annemiek's socks.

If the reason for the ban is because of sneaky aero advantage, why was she not DQ'd? After all she would have been DQ'd if she was using a non-regulation bike or components like handlebars, saddle etc. What's the difference?

I'm not for a minute suggesting she should have been DQ'd. I'm being more controversial than that. I'm saying that I suspect that the sock rule may actually be slightly silly.

 

[matticus]

Now back to Annemiek's socks.

If the reason for the ban is because of sneaky aero advantage, why was she not DQ'd? After all she would have been DQ'd if she was using a non-regulation bike or components like handlebars, saddle etc. What's the difference?

Because diferent penalties for different offences??

I'm not for a minute suggesting she should have been DQ'd. I'm being more controversial than that. I'm saying that I suspect that the sock rule may actually be slightly silly.

Now YOU're being silly. (although long socks really are not A Good Look for cycling. Except over longs on a January 200km of course. Preferably stripey ... )

 

[Dogtrousers]

Because diferent penalties for different offences??

AFAIK that's not the case. The Comissaires have disqualification available to them. I don't think there's a UCI doc saying "Socks: 200 CHF; Puppy paws: DQ". Happy to be corrected if there is such a doc.

Which makes me think that if they have a rule that they're unwilling to enforce (other than a small wrist slap) that also makes them a regular figure of fun in the media, then maybe the rule is a bit silly and will simply be ignored by riders.

 

[matticus]

AFAIK that's not the case. The Comissaires have disqualification available to them. I don't think there's a UCI doc saying "Socks: 200 CHF; Puppy paws: DQ". Happy to be corrected if there is such a doc.

You might be right, dunno!

But was anyone DQed for equipment violations at the Worlds? What races have had similar DQs?
They didn't DQ her for the iffy skin-suit, so theres a little consistency there.

Also note that Puppy Paws is a safety issue - sock length is not. IIRC you have to do quite bad stuff to be DQed - but fines are tossed around like confetti.

Just some ideas!

 

[Adam4868]

Loads of riders have been getting round the puppy paws,forearms on bars one.Wellens springs to mind the way he has his bars set up.Extra padding and levers tilted in.But getting back to the fines etc I think the time penalties are probally more effective.As in for throwing rubbish/bidons outside zones.Time penalties would be more of a deterent than a small ish fine .