Paris-Roubaix

janullrich

Whatever about stopping and not killing yourself as a train comes along, does it not make sence that

A) Its a pro race and there should be no trains alonged go through for a certain period especially so close to the end of the gruelling thing.

That the guys in 2nd, 3rd and 4th should remain so and the rules overturned. It is nonsence the way it is and the UCI should wake up.

Gav.

Trampas

Did you see your mans bike that just fell apart

da_deadman

Well I think I disagree there:

First, it's a bike race and, as such, it travels along the countryside and passes through the various obstacles on the way. If you are passing a railway crossing and a train is coming, then you have to wait. It's as simple as that.

And second, the 3 guys who were disqualified broke the rules and so they deserved to be disqualified. Even Van Petegem said afterwards that he knew they were breaking the rules. If they are showing such disregard for the rules then they deserve to be disqualified.
I thought it was a fair point that Pat McQuaid made about setting an example for other cyclists, especially children. However it's a valid point that the following three riders also crossed the railway line when the barriers were still down (after the train passed) so perhaps they too could have been disqualified.

I think that the best solution would have been to have an official at the railway crossing who could have stopped the Van Petegem, Hoste, Gusev group on the road and then delayedthe Boonen, Ballan and Flecha group for the same amount of time. Thereby negating any advantage either side would have earned.

cyclopath2001

Paris Roubaix is orgainsed by the same people as the Tour de France. They have unlimited money and people. They're supposed to be the elite of cycle-race organisation.

I'm astonished that for such an important obstacle as a railway crossing, they didn't position a number of marshalls there well in advance.

All they had was one motor-bike pillion rider who arrived just seconds in front of the riders. By the time he struggled off the bike and looked around, the riders had already taken matters into their own hands.

He had to be helped by spectators to stop Boonen's group riding under a train.

cerebus

Trampas wrote:

Did you see your mans bike that just fell apart

I'm guessing you are refering to George Hincapie's Trek? He had an accident earlier on seemingly, and that damaged the steerer tube. Repeated hammering over the pave didn't help matters. Paris-Roubaix is notoriously hard on bikes...

The controversy over the results is a bit of a PR disaster for the organizers alright - and I agree, it is hard to see how they can disqualify Van Petegem, Hoste and Gusev without also DQing the Boonen group.

As an aside, I mentioned this in another thread, but how impressive has Boonen been this year? Can he keep this form through the year?

janullrich

I think deadman that you are being very harsh. After 250km of racing the last thing guys are thinking of is a bloody railway crossing to necogiate! The organisers have a lot of money and should organise things better. It has not (or maybe never) happened for a long time and it should not have happens on Sunday. It is cruel on the riders involved. I think the rules need to be bigtime changed or indeed common sence put in place.

turbine?

slightly of topic, but I was reading cycling weekly (an old issue) and it had an article about the tour of britain and that during the race the roads remained open (similar to the ras here I suppose?) The article was questioning what the authorites were going to do for the olympics. Apparently they had to pass legislation for the tour de france, so that roads could be closed, and that similar legislation might have to be passed or implimented for future road closures.