Geraint Thomas's and Mikel Landa's comments afterwards seem about right.

"He (Thomas) was not at all cross, he said, with Quintana and Movistar for continuing to race, because "it was race on, we were racing anyway, it's just unfortunate. It shouldn't have happened, but that's what happened and I don't blame them, they were already riding a good while before that."


"Landa did not blame the motorbike for the incident, saying "we all want to be up there at the front, and there's not enough space.""

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-pick-up-the-pieces-as-giro-ditalia-hopes-take-a-battering/

(edit: Can't believe that autocorrect would misspell Thomas's first name)

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Without having eyes in the back of his head, Winner Anacona could not have known who went down, until a while later from race radio, by then it was a bit late. But I think going way back Lance and Ullrich slowed things down to wait for each other when there had been a crash of the main rival. Bummer for Yates ,Thomas and Landa. But that is racing. At least no one had to run up the road in cycling cleats on this stage!

I think Armstrong waiting for Ulrich in 2001 after Ulrich fell into the ditch was a case of, "I've got so much time in hand over that guy that I can afford to wait."

In 2003 when Armstrong snagged the musette bag and fell down, Ulrich had a front row seat on the climb right behind Armstrong and Mayo and he could see what had happened. "It's a slow speed fall and these two guys will be back up in a few seconds. (Maybe I can catch my breath while I take it easy for a bit, too.)" Not to say that Ulrich might have been able to take advantage, but in the end Armstrong caught up pretty easily (minus falling out of his pedal and landing on his top tube) and then took the stage by 40 seconds.

Even with radios, I don't know how anyone should expect Movistar/Quintana/Pinot/Dumoulin/et al to have known exactly what had happened and how long they'd need to wait. It would have been expecting a lot for the rest of the race to have slowed for the 4-5 minutes that Yates and Thomas lost today, (much less the 27 minutes for Landa).

Bad break for the riders who fell, but stuff happens.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I think Matt White's criticism was that laying off the gas for very short time would have allowed many to get back in the game. Yates apparently closed the gap to sub 40 seconds. Thomas and Landa were 2:23 back. I realize that is a lot of time, but they probably did not have to ease off the full extent just to give others a chance to reattach before the game was "back on". In any case, I can see both sides here. Movistar did not build any goodwill today. If they are at the other side in the future, other teams will have zero mercy. I get it that this is racing, but it's a long season too. Any I'm not even a Sky fan, much more interested in the type of riding Quintana did today at the top half of the mountain attacking incessantly "pantani style' vs the Froome "roboclimber behind his train" show.

Also by not saying anything negatively publicly Sky just left the entire door and morale high ground open to attack hard if Movistar hits the deck.

There was nothing to be gained nor lost by slowing down the pace for movistar, besides a outtaboy from people which neither help to win or beat the other guys!

If they had stopped then it might've make them look kool & big on "sportmanship" but nothing has been lost by keeping up the speed

Thats just my .02!

---

Speed kills unless you have speed skills!!!

Let's just assume that if Sky did the same, then its all good!

movistar had done the hard work for sometime before the crash to line out the group with themselves in prime position at the front heading into the climb
if they had backed off, would everyone else have let them retain that position? no, movistar would have been swamped by other teams and their work would have been wasted.
if the race is on, there is no waiting for anyone, except perhaps when its man on man and straightforward to re-establish (eg armstrong v ullrich)

bloody unfortunate situation though, 3 gc contenders gone, a key domestique for doumolin out of the race... not the way these things should play out

Absolutely! It is neither here nor there! It wasn't like movistar placed the cop there!

So if you're in the middle of your bike leg racing and the guy who ws in thrid place crashes, thats that mean you're gonna stop pedaling & wait for him to recover?!

Do that if you want to, but i assure you that 4th place and 2nd place will not look back nor stop pedaling!!!

An unfortunate situation but can't blame movistar either way, they're just riding their race.

---

Speed kills unless you have speed skills!!!

It's a race, right? Movistar were pulling for many miles before the crash, should they not be able to keep the peloton under pressure? Maybe Sky should have been at the front, where it is safest? The maglia rosa was not involved and even if he was involved, I think the race should still go on. G. Thomas might reconsider riding near the gutter. Historically, there have been many, many, many times when cyclists capitalize on the misfortune of their peers. Each stage of a Grand Tour is like a super bowl and career maker for a winner. Do you think the favorites should soft pedal if another favorite crashed in Paris Roubaix... I don't, and I don't think they should in grand tours, as luck is a big factor in ultimately being able to win. Sky, was either unlucky or poorly positioned or both.

Do you remember the 2nd stage of the 1999 TdF on Passage du Gois, a road that is under water most of the day, due to high versus low tides? Armstrong, knew the road would be slick and crashes would be likely. What did Armstrong and Bruyneel do? Armstrong, Hincapie, and others set a furious pace at the front of the peloton over this segment far from the finish line and it was in an early stage of the Tour. Many of the favorites went down or got caught behind the crashes (Michael Boogerd a 5th place finisher in the 1998 edition), etc, the peloton split, and Postal didn't do anything, except turn the screws harder on the coffins of the favorites that crashed out by setting an unrelenting pace to the finish. Those favorites lost their overall chances on that flat segment of road. Movistar does not have to worry about Sky for the rest of this race.

A summary of that fateful day for many GC riders!

Belgian Tom Steels won the second stage into Saint-Nazaire and Estonian Jaan was second. Kirsipuu did enough to take the maillot jaune from American Lance Armstrong. But the stage was really marked by the fact that several fancied riders went out of contention for the overall. So early!
The riders had sunny conditions as they road alongside the ocean. The Tour's scenic qualities remain undiminished by all the rest of the problems it has been facing. There was a large fall on the road - the Gois - which connects the island of Noirmoutier to the mainland and this badly split the peloton and cost several riders their chances.
In the end, when the riders reached the Atlantic port of Saint-Nazaire, there were 70 riders up for the sprint. 6.03 later another group arrived - chances gone and upset. Riders like Ivan Gotti (Giro winner), Alex Zulle (on his birthday), Festina's Wladimir Belli, Michael Boogerd, Christophe Rinero and Jean-Cyril Robin (the top two French riders last year). So after only 400 kms has been ridden, these riders are now a long way down on GC.

Actually that was the passage to Gois stage at the TdF 1999. You are right the dynamics were similar, but rather than one team driving the pace, it was many when the gap to Zulle, Boogard and a few others became apparent. There was a large group of teams working together...ONCE (Olano), Casino (Vino), Telekom (Zabel), Postal (Hincapie, Livingstone, Armstrong) , Mapei (Tom Steels), Saeco (Cippolini), Virenque (Festina), O'Grady (Credit Agricole). As soon as they saw Banesto with Zulle in distress the pace was jacked up after the passage. But it was not a single team

Here is an article on that. It was before Postal was dominant. The only thing they had done at that point was Armstrong's 4th at the 98 Vuelta:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/...s-causes-chaos-50738

You can watch the end of that stage from 8 min to 11 min in this video. You'll see many teams driving in this. Postal is literally on for the ride

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDGOK3HtxcA

I think today's case though is different. The race organizers basically screwed up the stage. You guys are right that Movistar did not need to do anything to slow it down, but maybe the organizers "could" have neutralized things for a few K, but I understand the complexity of that in real time when the heat of the race was on.

I updated my post after I searched for the specifics... but as you can see, several teams took advantage of several teams huge disadvantage.

"The gaps between the front and trailing groups then began to grow. It was 1.10 at the intermediate sprint of Machecoul twenty-five kilometers further on but from then on grew quickly. Four teams were hammering - ONCE, US Postal, Cofidis, and Casino. The evidence was clear. The average speed in the first hour was 32.9 km/h and in the hour after the crash it was 46.822 km/h."

I'm old. The rule used to be that you don't attack the race leader. If Jungels had already been dropped, then no big deal. Also, it's one thing to stay on the gas after a crash, it's entirely another to attack after the crash. I think they were already racing hard when the crash happened, but I could be wrong.

That stage was pretty crazy in 1999. At the end of the TdF the delta that LA had on Zulle was pretty well the same as after that day. This could end up being the same between Quintana/Dumoulin and Thomas/Yates. Or none of this will make any diff if the personalities at either side of this gap have a really bad blowup day. But Quintana never detonates. He's just super strong, or "flat and hanging on".

G. Thomas at least seems fine with it, obviously not happy, but understands why Movistar rode.

He was not at all cross, he said, with Quintana and Movistar for continuing to race, because "it was race on, we were racing anyway, it's just unfortunate. It shouldn't have happened, but that's what happened and I don't blame them, they were already riding a good while before that.

The etiquette is to not abuse a crash as an opportunity to attack, rather than a crash being a reason to sit-up and wait.

If it wasn't for the threat crashes pose to GC hopes, you would find teams would be very differently composed.

To ride the front, as Movistar did, requires recruiting a strong team and executing the plan when it matters. Sky too always has strong team and a budget that reflects that. Usually, Sky are the ones leading up hills. On this final climb of stage 9, they would have considered the effort to take the front, the match-up between Thomas and Quintana on this ascent, the tactics over all stages, the width of the road, etc. I would say they took the risk of riding down the bunch for what advantages they perceived as playing to their/GT's favour. Some of that decision might have been made on the fly, some of it probably considered beforehand.

Orica (whose GC rider also got caught-up), don't have the same focus on GC as Sky; supporting both Ewan and Yates. Its a bit potluck at the smaller scale, even with a rider or two there to help. This is a risk you incur when you don't bring a focused team and something Cadel Evans had to suffer in nearly all his grand tour starts.

A team putting in the effort to be at the front are also taking a significant risk. Their riders have to expend themselves, physically and mentally which is serious factor in a three week race. Two of the benefits being decreased risk and response advantage.

It's one thing to attack after a crash (big no-no), and quite another to keep the pace going. The race was "on" and Movistar was entitled. GC contenders get caught out in crashes all the time in practically every grand tour.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

There's a big difference between attacking after a crash or continuing what you'd already started. Furthermore, there's a big difference between allowing the peleton to regroup by easing off well before the end of a stage or continuing to ride as you arrive onto the big climb at the end of a stage. They'd have arrived at the climb by the time they knew who was down. There was little drafting benefit lost from that point on. The impact on the results was just that of the direct delays from falling or injury, not from losing the benefit of the peleton. The maglia rosa was unaffected and to have waited would have written off a major stage in this year's Giro. The crash had a big effect on the landscape of the race as soon as it happened. That couldn't have been repaired, only re-distributed. Either the guys that went down took the loss or it would have been Quintana and Dumoulin, the latter seems even less fair.

No

on point right here, there's not much to be said about movistar and Quintana's move to keep pace!

---

Speed kills unless you have speed skills!!!

perfect. +1

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

agreed. I saw it this morning while on the trainer, having read this thread first. its just racing.

the crash was in a small part due to everyone being on the gas, thank you Movistar. it was also a pretty standard peleton crash; meaning it wasn't the lead rider going down. the guy who hit the motorcycle was at least 6 riders deep. maybe more. so it was just one of those things. no need for a team to change tactics.

No

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook