The elbow
A competitor in the Tour De France competition was disqualified as he had "elbowed" a fellow rider into the barrier. It was at the last stage of the race when the front runners were in sight of the finishing line. At that point, the cyclists in that group started sprinting. The rule states that the cyclists when in the last stage of the race have to cycle in a straight line but the fact is that most cyclists try to overtake or cut off the competitors. The cyclist who fell after crashing into the barrier broke a bone which eliminated him from the race. He and his team felt victimised and appealed to the media/racing body to sanction the competitor.
The current view is that the competitor, Peter Sagan who elbowed his victim, Mark Cavendish into the barrier was in the wrong. With the replay of the video, the "elbow" look particularly vicious and uncalled for. The fact was that Sagan tried to cut off Cavendish with his bike and when that did not work, decided to use his body as well. Some former cyclists were of the view that Cavendish should not have tried to charge for a gap that Sagan could easily have cut off. They were also of the view that contact in cycling is unavoidable.
And cue the conspiracy theorists. The internet was then filled with people using the same video clip to show that Sagan was innocent. Incidentally, these editors helpfully edited the videos with comments and other helpful details. And there lies the problem. I do accept the concept of freedom of speech but if every decision has to be contested and all facts considered, most events will never end. Referees and umpires make mistake. Committees do produce wrong decisions. Even if the case is moved to a legal court, the decision makers are still human.
If every view has to be considered, most cases will never end. The danger is that more people are treating their opinion as a fact which assumes that they have the similar or if not greater amount of evidence as the deciding body. Even all decisions have to be made public with all the details, I doubt that the detractors will be satisfied. We have merely given them more ammunition for their contrarian views, advocating their pet causes or other belief systems. Conspiracy theorists could be right but they do need more evidence (Eg. A confession by Cavendish would help) first before getting back to us. Or we will run out of resources before we reached a conclusion.
The current view is that the competitor, Peter Sagan who elbowed his victim, Mark Cavendish into the barrier was in the wrong. With the replay of the video, the "elbow" look particularly vicious and uncalled for. The fact was that Sagan tried to cut off Cavendish with his bike and when that did not work, decided to use his body as well. Some former cyclists were of the view that Cavendish should not have tried to charge for a gap that Sagan could easily have cut off. They were also of the view that contact in cycling is unavoidable.
And cue the conspiracy theorists. The internet was then filled with people using the same video clip to show that Sagan was innocent. Incidentally, these editors helpfully edited the videos with comments and other helpful details. And there lies the problem. I do accept the concept of freedom of speech but if every decision has to be contested and all facts considered, most events will never end. Referees and umpires make mistake. Committees do produce wrong decisions. Even if the case is moved to a legal court, the decision makers are still human.
If every view has to be considered, most cases will never end. The danger is that more people are treating their opinion as a fact which assumes that they have the similar or if not greater amount of evidence as the deciding body. Even all decisions have to be made public with all the details, I doubt that the detractors will be satisfied. We have merely given them more ammunition for their contrarian views, advocating their pet causes or other belief systems. Conspiracy theorists could be right but they do need more evidence (Eg. A confession by Cavendish would help) first before getting back to us. Or we will run out of resources before we reached a conclusion.
Comments
Post a Comment