Results: Women's DH at Windham - UCI World Cup 2012

Jul 1, 2012 at 12:30
Jul 1, 2012
by Ian Hylands  
 
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login

Rachel Atherton on track--some controversy about her going off track and re-entering but not at the point at which she left the track. Ultimately the UCI ruled that she had not gained any advantage and let her win stand.

Nothing too crazy in the women's race today, the girls were fast, and the lower section of the track seemed to be where a lot of time was made or lost. Most girls chose not to hit the last jump, and many cased the one before it as well. Jill Kintner crashed somewhere in the middle of the track, no word on what happened yet but she didn't finish. Tracey Hannah was one of the first to hit the last jump, and she almost made it, but as they say close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. She cased it hard enough to break her seat off, smashing it into her tire. Fastest so far though and onto the hot seat with only Emmeline and Rachel to go. Emmy was fastest at the second split and charging hard but she blew up hard after casing the last jump and had to run across the line, finishing .04 behind Tracey. Rachel Atherton was last to go and she looked solid all the way down. Rachel was 5 seconds up at the second split, but she cased the first big jump a little and bounced and swapped out, going off course. She got back on track and pedaling hard she got back up to speed and was the only one of the girls to get backside on the last big jump, finishing .2 up on Tracey to take the win. There was initially a bit of a question about whether or not her run would count after she came back onto the track on the opposite side of the course marker than she went out on, but the UCI President Commissaire ruled that "the rider did not gain advantage when she went out of course. The result stands." That's the official word, you can find the ruling below.

The latest update on Jill, we're still not sure exactly what happened:

bigquotesHeaded to Albany in an ambulance with Jill, she's holding tough but got pretty beat up. Maybe a broken arm and a few other things - Bryn Atkinson on Twitter

Women s Podium L-R Emilie Siegenthaler 4 Tracy Hannah 2 Rachel Atherton 1 Emmeline Ragot 3 Myriam Nicole 5 .

Women's Podium, L-R: Emilie Siegenthaler (4), Tracy Hannah (2), Rachel Atherton (1), Emmeline Ragot (3), Myriam Nicole (5).


42234 DHI WE Results
Decision



Must Read This Week









97 Comments

  • + 14
 GIVE ME NEG PROPS...Rach should've definitely been DQd, we all know the rules and have seen people do the same resulting in a DQ. Commissaire should be fired. NOT that rach doesn't deserve to lead the cup with this awesome come back from injury
  • - 6
 You don't automatically get DQ'd for exiting/reentering the tape. It must be deemed a gainful advantage to the rider for this to happen. She clearly didn't gain any time and probably actually lost some time.
[Reply]
  • + 12
 The rules need to be consistent regarding going off course and re-entering at the same point. If you cut the course you must re-enter where you left the course so as to not gain an advantage. This makes sense, you are penalised time wise for your mistake. By Rachel going outside and just continuing on and not being DQ she has gained an advantage over the rest of the field. What I mean by this is that by continuing she did not lose the time she should have by re-entering where she went of course. This means her mistake compared to others was less costly and allowed her to narrowly win and gain points that she would not have otherwise gained. By allowing her to take the win after going off course has affected the points for every woman in the field. The course is bunted and you have to stay inside that bunting, if you make a mistake you pay the penalty like everyone else and re-enter where you went out. So as far as I am concerned they have allowed her to gain by her mistake...
  • + 2
 I agree fully, but what is consistent in the ruling is that it's not a matter of going off course and coming back on at the same point, it's a matter of what the president of the commissaires panel rules on the matter. As Si mentioned above the actual rule straight out of the book is this:

4.1.035 If a rider exits the course for any reason, he/she must return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited. If the president of the commissaires panel deems that the rider gained advantage,
the rider is disqualified (DSQ)
  • + 4
 How did rach atherton NOT gain an advantage by not adhering to "he/she must return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited"

The rule is so clear cut, her advantage was that she didn't lost even more time to re enter the course where she exited, that is her advantage

Rules are there to make it clear what a rider can do, or else all riders that go off the course can argue that they didn't gain an advantage
  • + 3
 Yes she lost time, but not as much time as she would have if she re-entered where she left the track. She lost some time but not as much as she would have if she went and re-entered where she left the track. Because she continued she lost less time than others would for a mistake and therefore actually gained on the others because she continued on. How much time to you have to appear to lose for it not to be considered an advantage. By continuing on it has certainly helped her to a win and also more points in the overall. Big advantage for her......
  • + 2
 1) She lost 4 seconds, going out of the track because of her mistake.

-She stopped and controlled her bike-

2) She didn't lost any aditional time recovering the spot where she left the tract, so she is "gaining advantage".

That's how it must be judged. Two differents actions, not only one. If you judge all in only one package you are considering that she lost 4 seconds coming back to where she exited and that is plain false.
  • + 1
 I mean, "she lost 4 seconds jumping to the next section of tape and that is plain false."
  • + 2
 But she didn't loose 4 seconds going off course, she was still on course getting sideways and trying to regain control of bike. Once she want off the course she was quickly able to regain control and easily turn back up the hill and was on her way again. But I do believe that a DQ is a harsh penalty for a mistake like this.
  • + 3
 I can see why Rachel wasn't DQed but the decisions are not consistent. If you look at Peaty's DQ last year (I forget which race) he didn't gain an advantage but was DQed.
  • + 4
 JonathanCarre, that's the problem. Just that. It's not a harsh penalty for a small mistake. It's "the penalty". The rules are what they are and must be written in a way that do not admit different interpretations.
Saying these, I don't think that a DQ is the fair punishment. Maybe a few seconds are the correct way to judge this kind of situations.
  • + 0
 Neg prop me if you want, but I think the right decision was made. I know what you guys are saying about how she gained an advantage if you are really asinine about interpreting the rule. But the rule wasn't made to DSQ people who made mistakes and are trying to get their run going again. It's to prevent people from outright cheating and cutting the course. I know that previous precedents have set a standard of usually disqualifying people who miss poles (like Peaty in LaBresse last year), and I realize that it sucks and is unfair to those people, but I still think that the right decision was made for Rachel.
  • + 1
 rachel cut the course in 2012
  • + 0
 I agree completely Conor, I was saying that Peaty should not have been DQed rather than that Rachel should have.
  • + 2
 Rachel didn't actually cut the course though. She didn't cut a corner and make the course shorter. If you leave the tape on the outside of a corner you are lengthening the course so you actually give yourself a disadvantage. I think this is why it is down to the presidnt of the commissaires panel at the end of the day. Not all instances are clear cut.
[Reply]
  • + 7
 props to both girls who crashed soo close to the finish! ragot crashed and was on the ground like 4 feet away, but thinking quick, she ran across the finish! and rachel being 5 sec up and then landing and sliding sideways about 20 feet, going off course, then just slamming the pedals and clearing that last jump! wow!!!!
  • + 2
 that was amazing, both of em. these girls are awesome
[Reply]
  • + 8
 Strange how Red Bull say its a live feed despite the fact its been over for about 20 minutes...
  • + 1
 Yeah, if it was live we would get to see all the men qualifiers, and the broadcast would be alot longer. I like the coverage but I'm not convinced any of it is actually live.
  • + 3
 Pretty close to live, I was watching the live timing for the men and the video feed was less than 30 seconds behind the live timing feed. With what's involved in getting a video feed to be output and then bounced across the world to Austria and then back to the other side of the US that's pretty impressive actually. The women's is a whole different story, and we've known that they won't be shown live since the first race in South Africa, so no real surprise.
[Reply]
  • + 7
 Micayla Gatto is killing it !!!
  • + 1
 I was really happy she did so well too! She should travel to the rest of the races!
  • + 1
 it's real sad to hear that she will not race in France Frown ...she's peaking at the moment and who knows how far she could go !!!
  • + 1
 Yeah, defiantly agree with you on that one... Maybe she could get signed by a team next year??
  • + 1
 Monster/Specialized should open up a woman spot on their team just for her !!!...she's already rocking a sweet TLD kit and she would fit right in by the time Troy's back,,, and Sam could also be a great mentor...
  • + 1
 Thats one good idea right there! We should write into them... hahaha Smile
[Reply]
  • + 3
 I'm sort of new to following mountain biking so I don't know the past precedents that may have been set but it seems this determination that Rachel "didn't gain an advantage" is determined in a sense of wether she gained an advantage by cutting the tape as opposed to actually staying on track. Like wether she made a deliberate attempt to cut time by going outside the tape. If thats the way they interpret it then the ruling makes sense because if someone is out of control and crashes through the tape they are clearly not gaining an advantage since I'm sure they would have rather just stayed in control and on course.

Most people seemed to be hung up on the advantage she gained by simply carrying on and not walking back to the spot where she actually went off course. She did gain and advantage in that sense, but that doesn't seem to be the basis by which they evaluate it.

Like I said I've only been following this stuff for the last 2 years. Are there any other examples of similar situations? Just thinking about it though, what generally happens in a race if someone crashes through the tape on say a steep rocky section, and they tumble down? Does that rider actually have to pick up his bike and hike all the way back up and around the sticks where they left the track? Like take Beaumont's crash today. Say he had gone over the bars like he did but went off the track sideways instead of straight down course. Would he have had to climb back up to the spot before getting back on the bike? That doesn't seem to make much sense since like in this case, the rider clearly wasn't trying to gain an advantage by leaving the track.
  • + 1
 Don't worry, you have it exactly right.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 For me the women of DH are unbelievably inspiring.
When you consider they could easily beat a top local racer (man) or entry level WC rider the respect can only grow.
Nothing sexier than a DH woman hanging it all out there...going ballz out, then having an epic get off, yet finishing the race anyway! A normal person would just sit down and feel sorry for themselves.....The Women of WC shrug it off like its nothing!
Pure respect from here.

The female movie stars, super models, and music stars are bug lint by comparison.
Atherton and Raggot are personal favorites....Not to mention great role models.
I think we need a calender Smile

Peace!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I thought over the tape was DQ'd so I think it will be an interesting discussion from here on. The decision has been made but I'm a little intrigued about the interpretation of the rules there. I almost put my foot in it over the results being spoiled early, but as it appears a few people are a bit too derpy and CLICKED ON THE LINK. Pinkbike learned their lesson after the fallout from announcing the PMB results too early. If you're dumb enough to click the results link then you deserve them to be spoiled.
  • + 1
 There is no penalty for going through the tape, but you have to go back onto the course at the same point you went out. Rachel went around a course marker which could have been grounds for a DQ but the UCI decided that she didn't gain anything from the move...
[Reply]
  • + 6
 Rach should have been DQ ed? Congrats either way
[Reply]
  • + 2
 As a Commissaire myself an organiser of a UCI ranked series I am familiar with this rule:
4.1.035 If a rider exits the course for any reason, he/she must return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited. If the president of the commissaires panel deems that the rider gained advantage,
the rider is disqualified (DSQ).
  • + 2
 The key here is "must return to the course at the same point from which he/she exited". That did not happen in this case. Clearly a DQ in anyone's book. I surely hope T Hannah is protesting.
  • + 1
 I disagree. The first phrase is part and parcel to the second. The commissaires panel takes discretion only if all prior stipulations were met. Otherwise the whole point of a rule book is moot, due to the fact that everything ultimately falls to the (very) subjective decision of the all-powerful commissaires panel.
  • + 2
 The rules are so clear cut, i really dont understand how they didn't DQ her? "he/she must return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited".
  • + 0
 Interesting how the dissenting comment that my second reply is in response to is now deleted.
  • + 3
 ^^ I'm glad you said that because your "I disagree..." didn't make sense with the rest of your comment.

The rule is written badly. If the second sentence is supposed to be used in conjunction with the first, then they need to put a caveat on the first sentence.

As it stands, one could interpret the second sentence as only coming into effect IF the rider returned to the course at the same point they entered. This is because the first sentence says "MUST", so there is no option to the rider of not being disqualified if they don't comply with the first sentence.

4.1.035a If a rider exits the course for any reason, he/she SHOULD return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited.
4.1.035b If the rider does not return to the course at the same point and if the president of the commissaires panel deems that the rider gained advantage, the rider is disqualified (DSQ).

If Ragot comes second in the overall by less than the points gained by Rachel today, then this decision decides which rider earned a rainbow jersey. I would love to know what Ragot said to Hannah on the podium - I think it was along the lines of "Looks like you won dude! Rachel will be disqualified for not getting back to the course at the same point she left it."
  • + 2
 @iamamodel - that's exactly how I feel as well. The discretion only comes into play if all the other stipulations are met. Otherwise there is no point to having any documented rule at all. The way that the rule is currently written, part A must occur before part B is an option.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 well done Rachel!!! i do think Rachel is going win the whole thing, with ragot second overall. a great start on the GT. cant wait to see the new bikes they make in the coming seasons.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 uci rule book
“4.1.035 If a rider exits the course for any reason, he/she must return to the course at the same point from
which he/she exited. If the president of the commissaires panel deems that the rider gained advantage, the rider is disqualified (DSQ).”

The second sentence is the important part here
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Pleased Rachel's having a good season, but I have to question the UCI. When Peaty went rejoined the track at a point after he left it last year they DQed him, and he definitely didn't gain an advantage.
[Reply]
  • + 4
 "she's gonna need a lawyer for a case like that"!!! Hahaha!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Sounds like Jill Kintner went down hard. Possible broken arm. WA State is rooting for ya, Jill!!!
  • + 1
 A Transition racing crew member at Windham who was retrieving her bike told me she has possibly injured her hip/fema and her arm. Not to mention she got her bell rung pretty good. He also mentioned there was some over-eager attention given by the volunteers who rushed over and tried to move her prematurely which made things worse pain wise. She crashed in the very fast mid section just after the road gap. For some reason there are no cameras covering the road gap section this year. In fact almost all the most exciting technical sections are absent of cameras. Not sure why. Heal quick Jill.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Way to jinx things for Ragot! Jeez, "barring any disaster" Rob says.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Wow, I havn't even whatched it, and I know the result already!
  • - 2
 Not too happy about that either!
  • + 3
 At least Hylands didn't put the result on the main page, like he normally does
  • + 14
 If you didn't want to know the result why did you click "Results: Women's DH at Windham"?
  • + 3
 They actually did.. But I think they realised..
  • + 11
 Just to be clear we haven't put the results on the home page since everyone complained at Pietermaritzburg, hardly a "normal" occurrence.

The post is on the home page as always, but all it has ever said is "Results Inside" You didn't have to click on it....
  • + 3
 I think people are just getting bummed out that the results were up before they had a chance to even see the race..!
  • + 3
 Yeah that's understandable, but Red Bull doesn't run the women's race until well after it's over. It ended and we knew the results over 15 minutes before the broadcast started. They do that so they can go live into the top men without having to have a break, and without having to show all of the 'slower' men.. Not saying I agree with it but that's the way it is.
  • + 1
 That's fair enough..! Maybe next time it would be better to post the results after having shown it for the first time on Pinkbike?

I'm hardly complaining though, the quality of the coverage otherwise was particularly good this time!
  • + 2
 I'm thrilled that I don't have to keep my eyes closed to load up the video or replay, to prevent seeing the results in the headlines. So thanks PB for listening in Pietermaritzburg.
  • + 1
 Whether the results are posted before or after the race has been posted to watch is irrelevant. If you want to watch it before you know the results, avoid clicking on the article that says RESULTS. It's pretty straight forward, and with a little common sense I'm sure we can all figure that out. Sometimes I miss the live run of the Formula 1 and have to catch the rerun later in the day, I avoid Facebook and the F1 site until after I have watched it to avoid knowing the results. I manage it and F1 is FAR more publicised than DH, so it should be fairly easy.
  • + 1
 @Timothy-DH, there are a lot of people that just want to know who won and don't want to or don't have time to watch the race, so we always post the results of every event as soon as we have them.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Yeah Rach!!! so close Tracey...
  • + 4
 Really wanted to see Trace get the win. She's such a pinner!
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Why Rachel wasn't disqualificated? She cut the strapes!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 evrytime lopes says 'definitely' take a drink
  • + 1
 Hahaha, I thought the same thing...Kinda like when you play the drinking game to The Police song "Roxane," When Sting says Roxane, the guys take a drink, when he says Red Light, the girls take a drink.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Where's Tracey's seat ... looked like her crotch got rocked on that biffed landing.
  • + 1
 This can be taken out of context in a variety of inappropriate ways.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 the gutsy girls were going all out. top entertainment love watching em do their thing
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Way to go Tracey!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Coverage was much better last year.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 what happened to Peaty ?!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 What a spoiler. I bet they don't realize about the huge delay haha
[Reply]
  • + 0
 so much for "live" coverage
  • + 11
 to be fair, the coverage has been awesome. A 15min delay is a small price to pay for what we're getting for FREE.
  • + 2
 yeah,stop whining,thanks Red Bull
  • + 0
 Apart from the stable broadcast freecaster coverage was better.
  • + 1
 Just think it shouldn't be advertised as live when it's not. I did really enjoy watching the men's and was very impressed with the quality of the broadcast.
[Reply]
  • - 2
 No Pinkbike it's fine. I didn't want to watch the race..!
  • + 1
 Then don't open the article that says Women's DH Results!
[Reply]
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2014. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv88 0.029985
Mobile Version of Website