"What a stain on Danish cycling" - Mathias Norsgaard fumes at his nation over scandalous handling of national ITT controversy

What corner? Zero advantage. Did you notice him using the sidewalk that is forbidden by rules? No, he used the side of the normal side of the road that at certain points very naturally and straight (actually dangerous to have to try to avoid during a race or a TT) turns into a bike lane (how ironic it would be if cyclists now got disqualified for using lanes designed for them, the last laugh for the anti-woke).

I agree they need to explain the reversal. With only a 2 second difference in time, they can’t argue that it had no impact on the results.

What had an impact, taking one straight line instead of another? You can see 2 riders, each takes a different option and you see no difference, in fact at one point it even looks as if the bike lane is the harder path to keep up speed, which as anyone who uses them knows, is not impossible.

Also, if you consider it had enough effect concerning the 2s then why are you ignoring the actions Skjelmose took and admitted to which then must also have impacted back in the opposite way.

I think you are looking at the reversal from the wrong point of view, the ds was the wrong decision so there is no need to explain the reversal, had the judge interpreted the rule properly in the first place there’d never have been a dq.

Hope he doesn’t get to work at Paris-Roubaix with his way of seeing things, there’ll be no winner.

Hey guys, I know it’s a lot to ask but if we have to go through details of long stories each time there is an update, some articles become interminable ( WVA legal case would be a good example). The website actually makes it pretty easy to search through past related articles where you find information to better understand anything you’ve missed. May e like me you try to avoid monopolising search engines but if all else fails, that’s also still a pretty easy way to find information if the interested/effort ratio crosses your threshold.

As a teaser, here’s a relevant sweet title:

Mattias Skjelmose outraged after jury names him Danish ITT champion despite losing en-route

All I'm saying is I don't know what the DQ was for, and it would be 1-2 sentences to tell me. I read the article, it didn't say, I don't know, and I don't care enough to find out. But, I do care enough about the site to let you all know that this critical piece was missing, and if I notice (and want) this, how many will think the same but not care enough to let you know?

The site connects every article about a rider to previous articles about that same rider, couldn’t be easier to go back up the chain of information without duplicating unnecessary work and ressources. Sorry, if you have time to write, complain and answer on the subject, your argument about not being interested enough doesn’t hold very long, or is hypocritical as it takes LESS time and effort to find the info then by dragging others into it. And for those who think the decision is mysterious, no, it’s actually pretty obvious. The issue isn’t clear so it takes time and consulting and outside guidance and approval (UCI amongst others, for who there is never any urgency) so questions, clarifications, answers, decisions can go back and forth many times before a final decision which may or may not be in one institution or person’s hand and may or may not find consensus. Rules prohibit using pavements, bike lanes are not strictly pavements and depending on how they are built (many different ways in different p’aces or even within one country or city) can be interpreted in different ways and so is the rule which should have been updated long ago in this respect as it was obviously going to lead to a situation like this. The fact that many of the other riders, Skjelmose included, used similar paths without getting penalized must be considered, in conjunction with the fact that it was only an opinion there was an advantage to be gained which has never been confirmed. But again to go back to the main point for those who will insist rules are rules, bike lanes are not sidewalks. if you want to be a pedant about rules, fine but then be equally pedant about definitions or better, propose to help in writing rules more clearly or completely to remove misinterpretation possibilities, it would solve a huge number of problems not least now that we seem to have gotten stuck with a generation of leaders who specialise in the exploitation of reinterpretations or deliberate misinterpretation.