I am really curious as to if any action is taken against riders when they do nasty stuff or do the officials just let them keep on racing in the other events.

Simple answer is Yes, officials can impose penalties and DQs when the rules are infringed, but have you ever come across a sport where that was not the case?

You can ride on the banking at walking pace, so that’s wrong as well.

I’m not exactly a seasoned track pro, though I’ve ridden on the track and this is nonsense. You cannot ride around the top of the banking at walking pace*, leaning into the inside of the corner and not fall off.

*Olympic walking pace may be ok.

but you do accept that it’s been looked at by scores of folk way more qualified than you, who were there at the time, had access to the competitors and multiple video angles in which to decide that it was nothing more than “stuff that happens during a race”
right?

I do not accept this; because I do not know if it has been investigated or not; or if a decisive decision has been made, or not; or if there was such a decision that the decision noted was that it was “stuff that happens during a race”.[/quote]

twisty, some logic if you will…

I think we can all agree the following items are fact and not opinion?

– You weren’t there to witness first hand.
– You aren’t experienced in riding on the track or judging/commissionairing such events.
– You weren’t in possession of all the extra video.
– You weren’t able to discuss with the riders/teams/other judges.

Based on all the above that already puts you at a significant disadvantage for interpreting the events. This will become relevant later…

Based on all the above that leaves 4 possible options that I can see:

1. It was not investigated because everyone (judges, teams, riders etc.) accepted it as normal/just something that happens in track racing, which voids your interpretation/concerns.

2. It was investigated by default as matter of course and determined that no ill intent was present and no sanction necessary, which voids your interpretation/concerns.

3. It was investigated at the request of *someone* and determined that no ill intent was present and no sanction necessary, which voids your interpretation/concerns.

4. It was not investigated and nobody lodged any complaint, none of the riders involved, none of their team staff or coaches, none of the other judges etc. and only you (even in the intervening week since it happened) were clever enough to spot what she was up to.

Now, I ask you, does number 4 seem likely given the points at the top of my post?

So it seems reasonable to assume one of the first 3 options is what happened?

Based on my completely unqualified view of the limited evidence available to me

Just stop right there. Even without any of the explanations offered in this thread as to what actually happened, track cycling is not so blasé and unregulated that stuff like this would pass unchallenged and uninvestigated.

Stuff happens in close quarters racing, weird stuff sometimes, that’s part of what makes it fun 🙂

EDIT – I suppose there is a 5th option, that it was investigated, decided it was deliberate but that the entire judging panel is crooked and decided not to punish her, and what we’ve just witnessed is one of the greatest injustices of track cycling ever.

I’m still in the 1,2 or 3 camp 😉

OK, so when I’ve done it at Manchester, with the tyres squailing but not letting go I must have been imagining it – admittedly that was in 1994 before cycling became popular – I bet they’ve changed the surface for a slippery one now.

If van Riessen hadn’t been in the way Cueff would have veered up the banking slightly until she’d got balance back and then straightened up and carried on. The problem was that van Riessen being there didn’t allow Cueff to lean over enough to get her balance back and so as said above they ended up leaning on each other, out of control.

Racing incident.

Girl at the track is fine to me, in the same way as you might say boys at the track.

“Naughty girl..” is totally different and a bit crap IMHO as a woman*

*other women’s viewpoints may differ

Not withstanding the fact that it’s patently a racing incident, no worse than Cav’s in the points race, it’s the idea that professional riders would do that kind of thing deliberately that makes me laugh. As pointed out previously, anyone causing a crash such as this is as likely to end up a over t as anyone else (which of course the ‘perpetrator’ did, taking a chunk of hard, wooden track with her for comfort), which makes it tactical insanity. That being a given, why would a top athlete, whose been preparing for years for the Olympics, throw it all away. Nuts.
Also, I’ve ridden on the track in Manchester and notwithstanding the discussions regarding the speed at which you slide uncontrollably down the banking, I can say that the normal rules of bike handling don’t apply in the same way. Very weird and not a little scary, not least when someone overtakes you above your head (happened to me a lot, maybe I should have barged one of the buggers into the hoardings..)

Just before the clips starts Cueff was on the cote d’azur going round the corner (she wasn’t on it to pass riders she had been on the black line then had been squeezed there on the back straight). At the speed they are going she wont be able to get around the bend without grounding a pedal however if you join the banking at that speed you will immediately get pushed up track a little. When this happens it looks like she hooked bars so very little control over what is happening. You just try and ride it out and hope the rider you are hooked with doesnt panic and try and yank their bars and swing up (or down) to get free.

So like others have said racing incident with no-one really at fault with a great save from van Riessen.

My track experience isn’t as extensive as I would like but I do have some. The dutch rider forced the french rider down from the black line to the blue. The blue part of the track would only be an angle of about 10-12 degrees while the main track would be 42 degrees, as the rider transitioned back on to the 42 degrees she would have been shot up the banking this is made worse by the fact the riders were locked leaning against each other.

There seems to be a common theme from those who think Cueff should have been penalised and that the judges didn’t do their job properly (despite not having any idea what that job is)

If you haven’t ever ridden on a track then you possibly don’t appreciate the way things work and that it doesn’t all happen in quite the way you’d think sitting in your armchair.

The one other point regarding this incident which hasn’t been mentioned is just about evident right at the start of the video (those doing forensic analysis seem to have missed this). It’s a bit unfortunate that clip doesn’t start a few seconds earlier. Because what starts this whole sequence was van Riessen leaning on Cueff. and no, she quite rightly wasn’t penalised either.

Based on my completely unqualified view of the limited evidence available to me

This was me clarifying that I appreciate that my opinion has little weight because I had only seen a snippet of the incident and have general lack of experience.

And my curiosity as to what the process and rules are is just that, I am not saying that I think any officials have got anything wrong.

Go ride the track yourself and try riding round the banking at slow speed while leaning to the inside rather than outside like Cueff

I don’t understand how this links in to the discussion – they were not going at a slow speed.

I’ve now managed to find some extended footage and it does appear to start with Riessen leaning on Cueff, Cueff then responds by leaning into Riessen in order to stay on the banking and they continue leaning on each other all the way to the top of the banking. To my eye there is no hooking of handlebars. It appears best I keep any further opinion I have to myself lest I incite further angriness.

Anger

The video of this incident (and Cav’s) were played in slow motion on the TV so many times that it’s easy to forget that it was slowed down and so looks like the rider did it deliberately, when in fact it actually happened at high speed.

I am not saying that I think any officials have got anything wrong.

It appears best I keep any further opinion I have to myself lest I incite further angriness.

These two statements would appear to contradict each other. And your opening posts, title of said posts, and follow up posts all seem to imply that you do think that she has ‘got away with it’ so to speak. If that’s not the case then some further clarity on what exactly you do think would help.

You’re entitled to an opinion, as we all are, the bit you seem to be missing is the ability to weigh evidence, consider the discussion points and explanations put forward by others and the re-evaluate whether or not your opinion might be incorrect.

Which is also fine, you don’t have to change your opinion for anyone if you don’t want to, but at least be up front and say ‘this is my opinion and nothing you can say will change it’ then we’ll know not to bother wasting time with the explanations 😉

These two statements would appear to contradict each other. And your opening posts, title of said posts, and follow up posts all seem to imply that you do think that she has ‘got away with it’ so to speak.

The subject title was clickbaity (but hardly out of place next to the trimming neighbours bush thread) and I somehow missed the questionmark at the end, and my OP was shortsighted – I had only seen the clipped slow-mo at that time. Still, I think the link was worth sharing as the capture of the wall-riding is worth seeing.

The statements don’t really contradict as I can have an opinion on the intent that a competitor might have had in the heat of the moment whilst appreciating that there isn’t evidence satisfying burden of proof for officials to issue a penalty.

you don’t have to change your opinion for anyone if you don’t want to, but at least be up front and say ‘this is my opinion and nothing you can say will change it’ then we’ll know not to bother wasting time with the explanations

In summary, yes I was far too judgemental in my OP.
I think some stuff posted in this thread makes very good sense, and some stuff does not. However, I’ve already spent way too long on this thread, so I am not going to respond to every point, better to let the sleeping dog lie.

Twisty, far too reasonable summary, no shouting, not enough outrage, and this:

better to let the sleeping dog lie.

seriously, where’s your commitment, this is STW!

3/10

I do think that photo is going to be a classic though and will be remembered long after we’ve forgotten who won which medals 🙂