Accessibility Widget: On | Off

Peaty DSQ?

Related:
Create New Tag

8/7/2011 5:40 PM

I saw that Peaty DSQ. Does anyone know why?

|

8/7/2011 7:18 PM

Went off-course accidentally right at the top and around one of the posts, if anything it cost him more time

|

8/7/2011 9:35 PM

while it may have cost him more time, the rules are pretty straight forward about staying in the tape. mega bummer for peaty, but fair for the other 79 racers.

|

8/7/2011 10:28 PM

sspomer wrote:

while it may have cost him more time, the rules are pretty straight forward about staying in the tape. mega bummer for peaty, ...more

Totally agree. There was no doubt he left the tape on one side of a post and entered again on the the other. Lame, and I can see a case for letting it slide, but the rules are clear and ge was in violation.

|

8/7/2011 10:44 PM

Why is it okay to go outside of the tape or to "stretch" the tape between posts but if you hit a post it instant DSQ?

|

8/7/2011 11:19 PM

It's not a judgement call. They just applied the rule, that's all. I would have been appalled if they hadn't - as much as I support Peaty and want to see him do well. But really, there can be no other way around the issue - it's a very simple rule, which says you need to stay inside the course markers (poles) all the way down. If you introduce a gray area or a notion of trying to appraise whether it was done to gain time or whatever, you'll be in no end of trouble. And, why did he go off course? He was pushing hard and made a mistake, went off line - sure, he actually LOST time due to the whole incident, but it all happened because he was looking for the edge (and went past it...). If you can go beyond the limits "unpunished", then what's the point of the other 79 guys staying inside the tape?

|

8/7/2011 11:37 PM

Rules are the rules. yea it sucks, but they gotta follow them&can't make exceptions. Its a bummer for peaty, but at the same time its pretty clear it wasn't on purpose. The track was sloppy, and whatever happend happend. Thats part of racing in my opinion. He was pinned. and unfortunaltly a little mistake or maybe it was the track, whatever it was it cost him. But its only fair to the other racers.

|

8/8/2011 12:52 AM

|

8/8/2011 5:23 AM

It looks like it was a valid application of the rules just in a crappy instance. Nigel was commentating that the rule states if you leave the course you have to reenter the tape before the next post. In this case Peaty was screwed cause he cut through the tape at an angle right at the post so when he reentered it was technically one post after where he went through the tape. Crappy indeed but at least he had a time assigned before the DSQ to show he can still shred just as well as a the top guys. =)

|

8/8/2011 6:52 AM

I agree with all of the above.. however do trees count as poles? since Sam Hill was allowed his podium after this in Maribor last year : http://www.pinkbike.com/v/140561/l/

|

8/8/2011 8:19 AM

As much of a fanboy I am for Santa Cruz, that sucks for Peaty!!! But as everyone else has stated, rules are rules. Nice vid DPH. I've never seen that.

|

8/8/2011 9:47 AM

That was dumb dumb dumb. Terrible reading of the rules. I know "rules are rules" but there are people making judgement calls on when and how to apply them, and that was not an instance in which it was necessary to DQ someone. He missed the apex of the corner, got hung up, and missed his pedals...punishment enough, no need to point fingers at a line in the rule book. Probably going to catch some flack for saying all this, but that was very lame, regardless of who the rider was.

|

8/8/2011 10:38 AM

dphilpott wrote:

I agree with all of the above.. however do trees count as poles? since Sam Hill was allowed his podium after this in Maribor ...more

No one but the random guy with his phone camera saw Hill go off course, everyone saw Peaty goof up...

|

8/8/2011 2:31 PM

dphilpott wrote:

I agree with all of the above.. however do trees count as poles? since Sam Hill was allowed his podium after this in Maribor ...more

he went back to the track from where he went out, peat did not.

|

8/8/2011 2:37 PM

nultex wrote:

he went back to the track from where he went out, peat did not.

Watch it again... He exited/re-entered in different spots.

|

8/8/2011 6:30 PM

I think the rule used to be "a rider must reenter the course such that there was no advantage" or something to that affect. Recently they clarified the rather broad for interpretation statement to include leaving the course and re entering before next tape marker. Perhaps they should go further and state such that the rider remains on bike. In Sam Hill's case there was clearly no advantage to that. He fell off the bike and had to get back on. Peaty was on the bike the entire time. While Peaty did not gain much it was clear he did not loose terribly much either. It was kind of a wash.

|

8/8/2011 11:53 PM

I know we're talking about the UCI here, but why not change the rule to a time penalty instead of an automatic disqualification? Peaty clearly was not cheating, he just blew out of the tape. A five second, hell, a ten second penalty would be plenty, and it wouldn't have the devastating effect of a big fat zero on his overall points. A DQ is not a fair punishment for blowing a corner.

There is such a thing as professional discretion. How many J-walking tickets do you see getting handed out? Just because the rules state something does not mean it needs to be enforced verbatim 100% of the time.

|

8/9/2011 6:44 AM

Although under completely different circumstances, we can't forget the precedent set here...

http://www.hbcutthecoursein1990.com/

It's a shame that Peaty got robbed of a podium for an accident though.

|

8/9/2011 6:55 AM

I find it interesting that UCI has a rule so hard to enforce for them. Unless you have cameras or course marshals every 10 feet along the course how do you enforce this?

|

8/9/2011 10:29 PM

That was almost an impalemanet... geez.

|