# Saxo Bank protest



## Apollo (Jul 3, 2011)

Edit: It wont let me post links as I'm a newbie but if you google "Saxo Bank protest" you'll see the news.

Google Translate:
"Bjarne Riis, the team leader of Saxo Bank, according to sports daily AS on the bosses of the Tour de France made ​​a request to the time lost from his team leader Alberto Contador of Saturday smaller.

Contador lost 1.12 to stage winner Philippe Gilbert after a fall in a chasing group had ended. 

According to Riis experienced Contador affected by a fall in the first group at 2 km before the finish line. In the fall were among others, Andy Schleck and Robert Gesink back, but they were lucky that this happened within the last three kilometers, so they got the same time as the peloton. 

Riis believes that the time lost Contador should be reduced to 34 seconds. The jury has not yet responded"


Interesting tactic and one that I think will fail as I don't think Contador was actually held up too much by that crash.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

According to Anders Damgaard, it's not true.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Velonews confirms it:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/07/news/no-panic-in-contador-camp-at-least-not-yet_181459



> Saxo Bank-Sungard officials confirmed to VeloNews that they asked the UCI and Tour de France to reconsider the time differences taken in Saturday’s stage. Contador was caught behind a crash with about 8km to go and was riding with Porte and a few Euskaltel-Euskadi riders, including Samuel Sánchez, with a difference of about 35 seconds when they hit the 3km-to-go banner. A crash with just over 2km to go involving several riders who were up the road, including Andy Schleck (Leopard-Trek) and Levi Leipheimer (RadioShack), seemed to slow the momentum of the Contador group.


I can't exactly grasp what loophole Saxo Bank is trying to exploit, but I see why they're trying to make the appeal.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Ventruck said:


> Velonews confirms it:
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/07/news/no-panic-in-contador-camp-at-least-not-yet_181459
> 
> 
> ...


confirms what?
"Riis also confirmed that they approached race officials and the UCI jury without luck, but decided they would not lodge any official appeal."


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

den bakker said:


> confirms what?
> "Riis also confirmed that they approached race officials and the UCI jury without luck, but decided they would not lodge any official appeal."


for a guy who's entire participation in this year's TdF is through one giant loophole, he has some balls arguing about loopholes.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

55x11 said:


> for a guy who's entire participation in this year's TdF is through one giant loophole, he has some balls arguing about loopholes.


Almost. He has some balls *whining* about loopholes.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

JoelS said:


> Almost. He has some balls *whining* about loopholes.


Meh.

To be fair, the race commissaires made a very strange decision in their assigning of times due to crashes. IMHO.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Marc said:


> Meh.
> 
> To be fair, the race commissaires made a very strange decision in their assigning of times due to crashes. IMHO.


to be *really* fair they didn't have to make any decisions or assign anything - they just followed some very simple rules that were covered ad nauseum (crash inside 3K to go - get the time of the group you are with, crash outside 3K - you are out of luck). There is really no controversy here.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

55x11 said:


> to be *really* fair they didn't have to make any decisions or assign anything - they just followed some very simple rules that were covered ad nauseum (crash inside 3K to go - get the time of the group you are with, crash outside 3K - you are out of luck). There is really no controversy here.


It was my understanding that Contador and Schleck were in the same group. Contador got 1m20s, and Schleck got 6s by arbitrary decision of the commissaires. If that's the case, I'd be more than miffed if I was Contador too.

(I may be wrong, all the streaming outlets didn't stay on for official GC timings on stage 1)


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I doubt that they are the only ones to make a "protest" they are just the ones that we know most about because it is Contador.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Marc said:


> It was my understanding that Contador and Schleck were in the same group. Contador got 1m20s, and Schleck got 6s by arbitrary decision of the commissaires. If that's the case, I'd be more than miffed if I was Contador too.
> 
> (I may be wrong, all the streaming outlets didn't stay on for official GC timings on stage 1)


No. They finished in the same group, but they didn't end up in it the same way.

After the crash at 8km, Schleck was in the front group, Contador was not. There was another crash at 2km. Schleck and others got held up here and the group Contador was in caught them. Since that crash was inside 3km, those directly involved got the benefit.


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

The camera work was shoddy so I don't know when AC caught up to AS group. If their return to the peleton was at all impeded by the 2km crash then they have a legit argument. Otherwise, tough luck, it's the tour, suck it up. 

Otherwise the rules were applied exactly how they are written


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

I was a bit confused here myself - after the initial crash at 8 km the VS announcers definitely showed the Contador/Euskaltel group trying to work back, and mentioned that they were at 35 seconds behind the leaders. Then, all the focus switched to the front group, Gilbert won, etc etc. So I was then confused when Contador et al rolled in at 1:20 down, thinking to myself 'How did that large group of chasers, including Contador and Porte from Saxo fighting hard, manage to give up another 45 seconds beyond the initial 35 second gap, all within the last 8 km?'

If that Contador/Porte group was impeded for 45 seconds by the Wiggo/Schleck et al crash at 2 km, I think it makes sense that they ask for a reduction in the time penalty, since it was a crash within 3 km completely outside their control that took that time away from them. However, that seems to be getting pretty subjective and I'm not really surprised the UCI didn't give them some time back.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

clonechemist said:


> I was a bit confused here myself - after the initial crash at 8 km the VS announcers definitely showed the Contador/Euskaltel group trying to work back, and mentioned that they were at 35 seconds behind the leaders. Then, all the focus switched to the front group, Gilbert won, etc etc. So I was then confused when Contador et al rolled in at 1:20 down, thinking to myself 'How did that large group of chasers, including Contador and Porte from Saxo fighting hard, manage to give up another 45 seconds beyond the initial 35 second gap, all within the last 8 km?'
> 
> If that Contador/Porte group was impeded for 45 seconds by the Wiggo/Schleck et al crash at 2 km, I think it makes sense that they ask for a reduction in the time penalty, since it was a crash within 3 km completely outside their control that took that time away from them. However, that seems to be getting pretty subjective and I'm not really surprised the UCI didn't give them some time back.


The issue is that they didn't _crash_ under 3k. They just found another group on the road and couldn't/wouldn't/didn't get by them to keep on rolling. The rule seems to state that if you are involved in a crash within 3k, not impeded by a crash within 3k. 

Tough luck for Beefaroni.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Lou3000 said:


> The camera work was shoddy so I don't know when AC caught up to AS group. If their return to the peleton was at all impeded by the 2km crash then they have a legit argument. Otherwise, tough luck, it's the tour, suck it up.
> 
> Otherwise the rules were applied exactly how they are written


The rules say nothing about impedance by another crash for a group behind, but even setting that aside, it is very hard to imagine that Schleck/Wiggings/Leipheimer crash (which didn't look bad at all) impeded a group that was 40-60 seconds behind them. It's not like they were all over the road, blocking everyone for a whole minute.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

I think the Schleck/Wiggins/Leipheimer group got held up by the crash at 2km, and then started soft pedaling it in. They were out of contention for the win and no longer had to fight for seconds because of the 3km rule, so no need to ride hard. The Contador group caught them up on the road, co-mingled with them, the chase got disorganized, and that's where they lost the time. They weren't going at Gilbert speed, that's for sure. Tough break for Contador, but it has sure made things more interesting for the rest of the Tour.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Contador's crash was well outside of 3K 
Schlecks was @ 2K
Contador should not get the 'inside 3K exemption" because he was not


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

I agree Bert should just have to suck it up and not whine about it (he isn't, so far at least). Just like how Andy Schleck had no one to blame but himself for last year's chaingate, yet he continues to whine about it. That's what makes Bert so classy.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

moabbiker said:


> I agree Bert should just have to suck it up and not whine about it (he isn't, so far at least). Just like how Andy Schleck had no one to blame but himself for last year's chaingate, yet he continues to whine about it. That's what makes Bert so classy.


if asking Tour to shave off 40 sec off his time is not whining, what is?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Tough luck, like getting stopped by a train in Paris-Roubaix or any number of other obstacles.

I'm glad this happened, because it makes the whole race much more interesting. A repeat of the Giro GC battle would be sad.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm sure there will be many more twists, turns, controversies, appeals and, yes, whining, before the peloton gets to Paris. As for my take on this particular situation, Conti's out of luck. How come Bjarne didn't yell into the team's earphones, telling them to lose those cruisers drifting to the finish? Or maybe he did.


----------



## serpico7 (Jul 11, 2006)

Mapei said:


> How come Bjarne didn't yell into the team's earphones, telling them to lose those cruisers drifting to the finish? Or maybe he did.


Yeah, I was wondering about this too. Obviously once they caught the group containing the other GC contenders, those guys weren't going to work to cut Contador's time gap; and maybe their DS' were telling them to softpedal it. So it was really up to the Saxo riders to organize and ride hard to the finish.

I think this is a great turn of events for an exciting tour. Contadope down 2min makes this a race. If it was reversed, any GC contender down 2min to Contador after Stage 2 would be done.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

55x11 said:


> for a guy who's entire participation in this year's TdF is through one giant loophole, he has some balls arguing about loopholes.


Good one!


----------



## slonoma98 (Jun 22, 2005)

lol funny how much hate there still is for Conti. Lance already retired guys.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slonoma98 said:


> lol funny how much hate there still is for Conti. Lance already retired guys.


Why does it relate to Lance? The guy is a shady little bugger, with a possible sanction hanging over his head, he just blew away the Giro a la Basso in '06, and we're supposed to embrace and love him?


----------



## slonoma98 (Jun 22, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Why does it relate to Lance? The guy is a shady little bugger, with a possible sanction hanging over his head, he just blew away the Giro a la Basso in '06, and we're supposed to embrace and love him?


lol Lance is just as shady, ask LeMond


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slonoma98 said:


> lol Lance is just as shady, ask LeMond


What's your point? Lance is a scumbag, no doubt. But there is a pretty big difference here...

*Lance is no longer racing.*

Your claim that everyone hates Clenbutador because Lance said they should makes absolutely no sense...


----------

