Tour de France

I thought the TDF was a bike race. Froome abandoned his bike and sprinted towards the finish. Must have thought it was a triathlon.

Not in keeping with the spirit of Le Tour - A bit disappointing.

K 

Disappointing? Not sure what you mean K, do you mean Froome's action or the spectators' actions or the race organisers' actions was not in the spirit?

Hardly a sprint by Froome, not that far a distance and no time actually gained, more damage limitation and pruning of time actually lost due to no fault of his own! 

Can anyone explain how, when a stage in which Quintana (and many others) finished well ahead of Froome, but then the stage was neutralised, Froome ended up gaining 26 seconds on Quintana?

Some riders were neutralised more than others, it seems......

In my opinion the race officials made entirely the correct decision. They were totally at fault for not erecting barriers so close to the finish. They must have known shortening the stage would concentrate spectators. This begs the question where did the barriers go. I doubt they were even put out at the summit due to the high winds. Even if they were, they could have been moved once they decided on the new finish. If the race officials had allowed the original result to stand we may well not have had a race today.

Can anyone explain how, when a stage in which Quintana (and many others) finished well ahead of Froome, but then the stage was neutralised, Froome ended up gaining 26 seconds on Quintana?

Some riders were neutralised more than others, it seems......

As far as I understand it Ian the race was not neutralised. Frome and Porte were given the same time as Mollema, who although brought down in the same incident, did not have bike damage and was able to continue with only a minimal delay. So if the incident had not happened it is almost certain that Quintanas deficit would have been larger. So in effect he still benifited from the incident, despite the organisers decision.

Can anyone explain how, when a stage in which Quintana (and many others) finished well ahead of Froome, but then the stage was neutralised, Froome ended up gaining 26 seconds on Quintana?

Some riders were neutralised more than others, it seems......

Ian, for someone who purports to know how cycling works, you appear to be rather selective on what you choose to understand.

Steve, sums it up above. Having made the honourable descision, had Froome's bike not been damaged by the following motorbike both he and Porte would have probably crossed crossed the line with Mollema. Granting him and Porte the same time was honourable in the circumstances. The pundits seem to believe, if anything Quintana gained 15-20 seconds. He could not live with that trio, the gap would probably have been bigger.

The ACO have protected the race.

Bring it on

I suppose they could have neutralised the stage completely, with the GC reflecting the times following the previous stage. Froome, Porte and Mollema's efforts would have been lost, as would Quintana and Yates advantage gained by circumstance. The commissaires were in a no win situation.  

We were on the D2 near Gordes, north east of Cavaillon - well before the accident.  Here are some photos:

David

Great photos, David.  We met DiDi the Devil (again) on the Ventoux, what a character he is!

A second stage win for Tom Dumoulin. It was a perfect type of course for him, it appeared. He's certainly one who could develop into a future Tour GC contender. Froome put a fair amount of time into all his GC rivals with Bauke Mollema also gaining times, to move up to 2nd. Adam Yates had a good day too although he did drop down 1 place in the overall standings.

Can anyone explain how, when a stage in which Quintana (and many others) finished well ahead of Froome, but then the stage was neutralised, Froome ended up gaining 26 seconds on Quintana?

Some riders were neutralised more than others, it seems......

As far as I understand it Ian the race was not neutralised. Frome and Porte were given the same time as Mollema, who although brought down in the same incident, did not have bike damage and was able to continue with only a minimal delay. So if the incident had not happened it is almost certain that Quintanas deficit would have been larger. So in effect he still benifited from the incident, despite the organisers decision.

But the incident did happen......as incidents often happen.

And Quintana gained time as a result of the incident. Bad luck for Froome, but that is life.

But having another triple Tour winner is good publicity for the Tour.....so the organisers try to pretend that nothing happened and remove any disadvantage caused to Froome by the unfortunate incident. Very poor and does the credibility and history of the Tour no favours.

Bp?