team attack by Elaska - Northeim - Bocksberg - 23:00 CET

[ATB - Racing]

Km: 117, Steigung: -6
Youssef Metawea (Elaska) attackiert
Mohsen Hamada (Elaska) attackiert
Norbert Kolodziejczyk (O Imperdor) schafft es nicht mitzugehen
Fernando Agostinho (O Imperdor) geht mit
Sigurður Josefssson (FB Radsport Team) geht mit
Omar Chibani (Elaska) geht mit
Vincent Roy (BB Breakers97) geht mit
Shavkat Sodiqov (FB Radsport Team) geht mit
John Duffy (O Imperdor) geht mit

initial group were 23 riders.

Youssef Metawea was in front of the other guys and won.

nothing fits here

3. Chained Attacks. Escape (attacking or following) with more than 2 riders of one team at the same km out of the same group. This rule is deactivated:
- if ≥11 riders from ≥4 teams escape, or
- if the original group has ≤14 riders, or
- if there are ≤20 km left in the race, or
- if the road incline is ≥4%.

noone mentioned it in the chat.

FB Radsport Team(00:31): Good night! Thanks for playing!
BB Breakers97(00:30): gw and good night to you all
FB Radsport Team(00:23): FB declares the same replacement in the FB team
Elaska(00:22): See u soon
Elaska(00:22): Good night guys
BB Breakers97(00:13): Team BB declares that they will replace the tactical manager 🫣
FB Radsport Team(00:13): Yes, Gw. Well done-
O Imperdor(00:10): Gw rlaska
BB Breakers97(23:56): someone to help in Front?
FB Radsport Team(23:45): yes!
O Imperdor(23:44): New?
FB Radsport Team(23:06): ))
BB Breakers97(23:04): sleeping is a nice hobby - i hope i can resist
Elaska(23:02): Holà
BB Breakers97(23:01): hi there
FB Radsport Team(22:46): Hi, good evenong! Also not interested in sleeping? ;.)
O Imperdor(22:38): Hi

[Elaska]

Oh you got a point there. Guess since it was a 4 team peloton Noone really paied attention to that.

But this case is interesting to discuss.
Since they did not ended in the same group, which one has to drop? The one in front? Or One of the 2 in 2nd group?

For the second case which one has to drop? The strong classic? The useless Flatie?
What's the tolerance time of reaction there? Since there was 2 km Noone reacted behind, than an attack, and I ended catching the 2nd group by the peloton.

Hmm would really like some feedbacks there.


And what was the last discussion about 'incline'?? Up and down? Or incline meant only for up?

[Alkworld]

And what was the last discussion about 'incline'?? Up and down? Or incline meant only for up?

Incline can be positive or negative, >= 4% only means positive, i.e. on climbs with 4% or more.

[flockmastoR]

Oh you got a point there. Guess since it was a 4 team peloton Noone really paied attention to that.

But this case is interesting to discuss.
Since they did not ended in the same group, which one has to drop? The one in front? Or One of the 2 in 2nd group?

For the second case which one has to drop? The strong classic? The useless Flatie?
What's the tolerance time of reaction there? Since there was 2 km Noone reacted behind, than an attack, and I ended catching the 2nd group by the peloton.

Hmm would really like some feedbacks there.


And what was the last discussion about 'incline'?? Up and down? Or incline meant only for up?

≥4% is clear. It was clear before as well just allagen playing the fool over a decade ago was "the last discussion".

About whom do drop: from my perspective dropping one rider no matter whom is acceptable under the following conditions without any further thought:
a) The rider didn't ride after the attack
b) The drop is within a proper reaction time (just a few km)

In all other cases it depends if the other teams in the race and/or the FPC see am influence on the race by the improper reaction of the team attack.

And just to say it: you clearly have enough experience to recognize a team attack when it happens

[flockmastoR]

Ok after watching the replay now some thoughts.

The one rider attacking and being in front of all others continues and wins the race.
The other riders of elaska do nothing and are caught by the peloton 7km after the team attack but they interfere in the race by still following the attack after at km 120.

IMO being in the group 2 with 2 riders and having a 67 there and following with both influenced the way how the group behave. I dont know if the km after the attack was a sec trick out of tempo or if the others there just slept. Elaska himself caught the group 2 while having 2 riders sucking there. So I think it had influence on the outcome of the race or at least potentially on how the other group members behave (they see Elaska there with 3 and the best climber thinking we will go for it first, riding in the back while sucking with 2 riders later)

[Elaska]

≥4% is clear. It was clear before as well just allagen playing the fool over a decade ago was "the last discussion".

About whom do drop: from my perspective dropping one rider no matter whom is acceptable under the following conditions without any further thought:
a) The rider didn't ride after the attack
b) The drop is within a proper reaction time (just a few km)

In all other cases it depends if the other teams in the race and/or the FPC see am influence on the race by the improper reaction of the team attack.

And just to say it: you clearly have enough experience to recognize a team attack when it happens

OK for the incline.

I guess Noone was paying attention at that moment. Even harder on those little fields and Noone mentioned it.

I think there was 2km of black out where nothing happened.
If noticed I would just have dropped the Flatie and chased immediately with the peloton.

[Tukhtahuaev]

FPC is investigating the case

[Falcor CC]

FPC decision: 165.776 fine for Elaska, containing 50k as a fine for the team attack and 115.776 prize money being stripped.

[Elaska]

I make appeal.

Was not intentional and I consider that I did not take benefit from it.

[Robyklebt]

There is a precedent, a race where nobody realized it was a team attack during the race. Difference is that some (including me) actively said that there most likely wasn't a team attack. And the winner wasn't the one doing the team attack.. but there was some influence on the race too then.

IMO the decision then was correct.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9514

This case is similar in that in both cases the guy doing the team attack simply didn't recognize that it was one. Yes, they should, but sometimes you just don't.
Different in that Gipfel then didn't win.
Different in that nobody told Elaska that it wasn't one, while some in the gipfel race said that they thought it wasn't one. This difference the more important one.

The influence on the race? If there was just one Elaska in that group, he still blocks the chase, he still slows them down, without having seen anything just reading to me the influence seems rather minimal. But of course there's always an influence.

Considering all that, the "full penalty", 50k for team attack and the prize money back seems excessive. Due to the differences between the 2 cases some sort of monetary punishment is probably ok (would have been ok too in the Gipfel case, the attacker HAS to know himself, in his case though the misleading by Donks and co cancels that out a bit, more than 20k would have been excessive then, 0 better though) but both, all full?

[Elaska]

The decision is rude yes.
If they can justify how I benifited from this team attack I can accept it.

I got the strongest classic in the 2nd group, and also in the peloton.
I endend catching back the 2nd group 7km later without noticing the team attack. The field was very small.

This is the first case of team attack I got since 2009, getting the double fine for a non intentional case without benefit for me is hard to understand.

[Schartner Bombe]

There is a precedent, a race where nobody realized it was a team attack during the race. Difference is that some (including me) actively said that there most likely wasn't a team attack. And the winner wasn't the one doing the team attack.. but there was some influence on the race too then.

IMO the decision then was correct.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9514

This case is similar in that in both cases the guy doing the team attack simply didn't recognize that it was one. Yes, they should, but sometimes you just don't.
Different in that Gipfel then didn't win.
Different in that nobody told Elaska that it wasn't one, while some in the gipfel race said that they thought it wasn't one. This difference the more important one.

The influence on the race? If there was just one Elaska in that group, he still blocks the chase, he still slows them down, without having seen anything just reading to me the influence seems rather minimal. But of course there's always an influence.

Considering all that, the "full penalty", 50k for team attack and the prize money back seems excessive. Due to the differences between the 2 cases some sort of monetary punishment is probably ok (would have been ok too in the Gipfel case, the attacker HAS to know himself, in his case though the misleading by Donks and co cancels that out a bit, more than 20k would have been excessive then, 0 better though) but both, all full?

That's interesting. Are you writing this massive post just for this crap? Why? Because Elaska is in your brown-nosing group?

[Hansa]

The FPC concluded that there was an impact on the race result, and Elaska might not have won if he doesnt have the additional guy from his team attack in the chasing group.
Also Elaska should be experienced enough to realize his team attacks, he had enough time to check after his attack if it was a team attack or not.

The Fine is according to the guideluines and the recent decisions on team attack, 50K fine + strip of price money.

Elaska can appeal this decision, it would help if he clarifies on which ground he does object this decisions and the FPC can recheck.

[Hansa]

Different in that nobody told Elaska that it wasn't one, while some in the gipfel race said that they thought it wasn't one. This difference the more important one.

Difference is that this one could have easily be checked afterwards during the race while Gip wasnt able to check if it was a team attack or not before the race end and he could watch the replay.
This one is also rather obvious that should have been seen by any experience manager immedietely.

[Robyklebt]

Yes, this one could have been checked, another difference true.

I think there used to be a sentence in the rules saying something like "being offline still makes you liable for team attacks", don't remember exactly, unfortunately another sentence that has disappeared for no apparent reason from the fairplay rules we all accept. So doesn't count anymore. What it meant in the larger sense is that the guy doing a team attack is always responsible for it himself. In Gipfel's case, which I don't really remember except the case, he couldn't check in retrospect (rest group and chasers together I guess?) But according to that old rule the final responsibility was still his. (The sentence already was gone, but maybe lives on in spirit?) Regardless of what ignorants like the Donkey in that case say, regardless of possibility to back-check. It's Gipfel's responsibility. A strict interpretation of the rule would have given him a fine. IMO the FPC at the time took the right decision. He couldn't check, others told him it was likely ok. Show flexibility, let it pass, right decision.

Here the case is indeed a bit different, yes, if you think it also had an influence on the result, ok, I never checked, no intention to either. But the original sin, the team attack, is the same. He didn't realize it, even though he should. And nobody else in the race realized it either, he was never made aware of the team attack. So why not show some flexibility here too? That doesn't have to be no fine, no money back, but could be something in between this full power of the guideline and nothing at all.

All team attacks are a bit different.
The one from Gipfel is not the same as this one.
The Lula case is not the same as this one either.

In judgement though this and Lula were treated the same. Even though Lula was told it was a team attack (it was also a clearer active team attack, not a passive like this) by an Admin, didn't react, then was told by Taka, he then according to flockmastoR finally reacted 25 km later and dropped a guy. Elaska ignorantly continued to ride. Lula "knowingly" (if he read the chat, which you have to expect from managers) continued to ride. Treating these 2 cases the seems wrong to me. Different situations, different reactions should be taken into account. Again, this doesn't mean here no fine-keep all the money would be right, it was in Gipfel's case, less here. But the full punishment seems wrong too.

[Schartner Bombe]

Yes, this one could have been checked, another difference true.

I think there used to be a sentence in the rules saying something like "being offline still makes you liable for team attacks", don't remember exactly, unfortunately another sentence that has disappeared for no apparent reason from the fairplay rules we all accept. So doesn't count anymore. What it meant in the larger sense is that the guy doing a team attack is always responsible for it himself. In Gipfel's case, which I don't really remember except the case, he couldn't check in retrospect (rest group and chasers together I guess?) But according to that old rule the final responsibility was still his. (The sentence already was gone, but maybe lives on in spirit?) Regardless of what ignorants like the Donkey in that case say, regardless of possibility to back-check. It's Gipfel's responsibility. A strict interpretation of the rule would have given him a fine. IMO the FPC at the time took the right decision. He couldn't check, others told him it was likely ok. Show flexibility, let it pass, right decision.

Here the case is indeed a bit different, yes, if you think it also had an influence on the result, ok, I never checked, no intention to either. But the original sin, the team attack, is the same. He didn't realize it, even though he should. And nobody else in the race realized it either, he was never made aware of the team attack. So why not show some flexibility here too? That doesn't have to be no fine, no money back, but could be something in between this full power of the guideline and nothing at all.

All team attacks are a bit different.
The one from Gipfel is not the same as this one.
The Lula case is not the same as this one either.

In judgement though this and Lula were treated the same. Even though Lula was told it was a team attack (it was also a clearer active team attack, not a passive like this) by an Admin, didn't react, then was told by Taka, he then according to flockmastoR finally reacted 25 km later and dropped a guy. Elaska ignorantly continued to ride. Lula "knowingly" (if he read the chat, which you have to expect from managers) continued to ride. Treating these 2 cases the seems wrong to me. Different situations, different reactions should be taken into account. Again, this doesn't mean here no fine-keep all the money would be right, it was in Gipfel's case, less here. But the full punishment seems wrong too.

we have 2026. Your texts are not good for poem. why do you write so much? are yo the clown rTaka meant?

[Schartner Bombe]

@Klebt: When you write, it really gives me insight into how you tick.

[Schartner Bombe]

maybe fpc should take a look at the brown-nosers.

[Robyklebt]

Damn have to edit since you write so many posts.. quote you now

we have 2026. Your texts are not good for poem. why do you write so much? are yo the clown rTaka meant?

Possibly, clowns are funny after all. But you really would have to ask him. Poems? Not much into poetry, sorry, so it doesn't really bother me that my texts are not good as poems, Should I try to write some poems?

But counter question:

What are you so upset about? Do you think this judgement was correct? Why? Do you think this team-attack deserves exactly the same punishment as the one done by Lula? Clear differences, exactly same punishment? While there is a case, different again, where the FPC showed flexibility and took into account the difference to other cases and decided to give no fine at all.

Oh.. I try:

Was this jugdement correct?
Was ist even perfect?
It was a team attack
he didn't take it back
he got a fine
is that fine?
What about Gipfel's case?
Yeah, we can't take it as base.
Lula got the same
but who can you blame
he ignored complaints
we're not all saints
Elaska wasn't told at all
maybe everybody was playing with a ball (I'm getting serious doubts about my talents as poet btw)
Why not show some flexibility
To increase the durability
Of this great game
after all not all cases are the same!

[Elaska]

The FPC concluded that there was an impact on the race result, and Elaska might not have won if he doesnt have the additional guy from his team attack in the chasing group.
Also Elaska should be experienced enough to realize his team attacks, he had enough time to check after his attack if it was a team attack or not.

The Fine is according to the guideluines and the recent decisions on team attack, 50K fine + strip of price money.

Elaska can appeal this decision, it would help if he clarifies on which ground he does object this decisions and the FPC can recheck.

You re totally wrong. I win this race in any case.
The 2nd guy is from the peloton. And like said the group was caught by myself 7km later.
Using the experience argument, I got more experience than all the others opponents, so there also I don't see how the win could escape from me.

Mabe the problem isn't the case, but who is judged here?