Gwin and Rachel are going to have to slow it down because we're running out of clever titles. The short, intense track at Windham made for exciting racing in dry, loose conditions. In the end, however, Aaron Gwin put nearly one second on the field to take the win. Rachel Atherton saved a crash that could have cost her the win, but she was up by nearly 4 seconds before the mishap and was able to squeak in another victory. A HUGE THANKS TO SVEN, DUNCAN AND MATT FOR THEIR HARDWORK THIS WEEKEND!!
0:00
0:00
:05

Embed
CombatMutt
7/3/2012 5:46 AM
Adam_Schaeffer
7/2/2012 11:56 PM
pholange
7/2/2012 9:07 PM
CombatMutt
7/2/2012 6:43 PM
CRFRDH
7/2/2012 4:03 PM
too much FR in a DH....I would say yes...and have being constantly argue across the globe, DH should be you against the terrain at the best speed you can carry out to put the best time, but when you put man-made stuff that is huge, now you start to wonder...even moto guys look at these jumps and get amaze on how you can get a away with them without a motor...
I saw the cup feed...and probably out the 30guys on the transmision, I can bet 10 managed to clear the jump safelly, the rest, either got short on the back wheel or came just inches short on the front, don´t know how they didn't got the same luck as Emmeline.
Just to give some in perspective...this was the finish line on the Panam 2010 in Guatemala...the guys were pedalling their asses off to make it...so, question comes, am I a second place rider when I beat everybody at the tecnical stuff but fail to win because I crash at the very finish line on a hugemongus jump..?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=438119622895197&set=a.125733737467122.9337.125673044139858&type=3&theater
Now, to my acknowledge, what was the difference from Peaty DQ versus Rach's one...?
Albe23
7/2/2012 6:57 PM
I wouldn't say there is too much. I would say it is just fine. The only reason why DH was terrain based back in the day was because the bikes couldn't handle the stuff like they can today. With that said that last jump wasn't built well, either the face should've been clipped or the landing shortened up or I dunno make it a proper table top.
Also, I'm not trying to be harsh but yeah if you can't make the last jump you are still second. First place made it, second didn't, that's racing. I figure though that it is not having jumps that is pissing people off, its that they are being executed poorly. When, like you said, people have to peddle their asses off or the majority of the field can make it. We have a course design fault. Jumps good, freakishly hard ones, not so much.
CRFRDH
7/2/2012 7:28 PM
Albe23
7/3/2012 12:16 AM
Primoz
7/3/2012 6:54 AM
iceman2058
7/3/2012 1:25 PM
Except that they still have not actually written the rule to allow for what actually happened with Rachel here. In fact, a good test here is to sit down and write a rule that WOULD cover this situation. It would read something like:
"A rider must stay within the marked course at all times. A rider who exits the course for any reason may re-enter the course at the nearest convenient point and resume his/her run, but only if doing so does not constitute an advantage. The commissaire may DSQ a rider whom the commissaire considers to have gained an advantage by exiting and re-entering the course."
It's a pretty ridiculous rule, when you put it like that, right? You can see that this rule would really create a grey area and a huge bone of contention, and really makes no sense at all. Yet, that is actually what Rachel did here. And in doing so she broke the current rule which says that she must re-enter at the point of exit. There is NO rule or condition that allows her to re-enter anywhere else - advantage or no advantage. There simply are no grounds whatsoever in the rulebook for the commissaire's ruling - he went straight against the current rule in his decision. Simple as that.
If you want to read the whole rulebook, it can be found here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34424&LangId=1
Adam_Schaeffer
7/3/2012 1:39 PM
sideshow
7/2/2012 3:13 PM
veach
7/2/2012 11:18 AM
Hey Spoons, I think I've got a few more:
Gwinternational, Gwinter, Gwinterior, Gwinside, Gwin in rome, Gwinteresting, Gwinterest, Gwinsomnia...
Albe23
7/2/2012 1:02 PM
Scrub
7/3/2012 4:04 PM
brett
7/3/2012 10:55 PM
pink wolf
7/2/2012 9:28 AM
Big Bird
7/2/2012 10:57 AM
Albe23
7/2/2012 9:00 AM
Primoz
7/2/2012 8:53 AM
Albe23
7/2/2012 9:15 AM
Albe23
7/2/2012 8:51 AM
The course cutting rule is there for the soul purpose of preventing racers from exploiting track placement. Why take that corner when I can just jump over it or take this run through a set of trees instead? Yes it is has terrible wording. If the first part of that rule was a hard line it should've been placed sepeartely, yet it wasn't. Thus the rule plays out like this: If you violate track boundaries and gain an advantage (easy as hell to evaluate btw) you are DQ'd. If you violate track boundaries and gain no advantage (also easy to evaluate) you are not DQ'd. That whole section about re-entering is for the racer that gets stupid, forgets where he is going, and blows through a boundary and wants to continue with their run. Not for the racer who gets swapped out after a poor landing and is forced to regain control by going off track. Unfortunately like Iceman said, it doesn't say that....
Also, judging by this ruling you can bet that is how the comm. made his/her ruling thus setting a precedent for said rule. Whether or not we agree with him is another story. Just chalk this up to another one of UCI's rulebook failings....
iceman2058
7/2/2012 7:35 AM
The horse isn't dead enough yet.
The real question to ask is where does it say that a rider MAY enter a course at a different point to the exit? Answer: it doesn't. It only says that a rider MUST re-enter at point of exit. There is nothing in the rule to moderate this statement. There is a FURTHER condition that states that a commissaire may DQ a rider if the commissaire finds that the rider gained an advantage by exiting and re-entering, it says NOTHING about such re-entry taking place at a different point on the track.
kochjg
7/2/2012 9:06 AM
As an attorney I would say your analysis is exactly correct. The rule does not allow the Commiss to make a judgment to *not* DQ a rider under any circumstances - it only allows the Commiss to DQ a rider. Nor does the rule allow the Commiss to *not* DQ a rider for "no advantage gained" where a rider exits and re-enters at a different point - the decision appears to conflict with the rule on two counts. Under the rule, the Commiss may only DQ a rider if an advantage was gained as a result of exiting and re-entering the tape at the same point. The first sentence states the rule, the second sentence modifies the rule. What the Commiss did was make up a third proviso of the rule by choosing *not* to DQ a rider that exited the tape and entered at a different point, which the rule's language does not authorize - under the language of the current rule, or what I've read of it [caveat], if a rider re-enters at a different point it is an automatic DQ - there is no judgment call as to whether an advantage was gained. Any court would reverse that decision if it were in a position to consider it - just sayin. It's hard to imagine under what circumstances the rule and the power to DQ based on a judgment actually applies, but it's possible - for instance a rider may avoid one bad rock on an otherwise killer line by swerving just around it and pushing into the tape for 1 foot to do so - that may constitute exiting and re-entering at the same point and gaining an advantage for doing it, which would allow the Commiss to DQ based on his *judgment* that an advantage was gained, even though the rider exited and re-entered at the same point.
All that said, what's done is done and nothing against Rachel - if she was legit 4 seconds up on the 1st split, I don't feel so bad about her taking the win. The UCI should have an attorney review their rules for future cases though.
Smutok
7/2/2012 6:19 AM
pink wolf
7/2/2012 5:47 AM
lev
7/2/2012 6:00 AM
lev
7/2/2012 6:05 AM
Mr. P
7/2/2012 8:28 PM
Yes. Human + competition = complications.
Off track but not having to re-enter at exit point = advantage.
Great runs by Rachael & Tracy & Emelie.
I think it is great we are talking about the women's racing. A great sign for DH.
P
Oh, and those photos are pretty ok too. I'm glad the processing lab could meet the deadline.
iceman2058
7/2/2012 6:56 AM
I didn't blame Rachel...?
The wording of the revised rule is about as bad as it gets BTW. It starts as a very clear rule ("rider must re-enter at the point he/she left the course"), but then it adds a vague statement "if the commissaire judges an advantage was gained he/she may be DQed" - in relation to what exactly? I know what they MEANT when they wrote it (i.e. re-entered at some other point), but they even failed to spell that out as well.
Sloppy sloppy. Change it to "if you leave the track you have failed and are immedaitely DQed". No more room for any interpretation, + it's the most fair way to deal with the issue. If people cut the tape it's because one way or the other, they failed to keep their run on course. Why should that not be penalized? It's about going as fast as you can down the hill, WHILE STAYING WITHIN THE MARKED COURSE.
iceman2058
7/2/2012 2:27 AM
lev
7/2/2012 2:26 AM
sspomer
7/2/2012 2:09 AM