Team attack NC Peru

[Alkworld]

Team attack by Luna Team Bike at the Peru NC
- Marcelo Parra attacked at km1
- 1 Luna attacked, 3 followed my attack at km2 leading to 5 Luna riders in group 1
- Parra and one of the four was dropped
--> one (being stronger than Parra) remained in front illegally

Race-wise it barely matters having Luna ahead of the peloton with 8 riders anyway. But that would be even more reason to at least follow the fairplay rules.

See race log and chat below.

Km: 4, Steigung: 0
Ulises Espinoza (Luna Team Bike) attackiert
Salvador Contreras (Luna Team Bike) attackiert

Km: 3, Steigung: 4
Simon Neira (Luna Team Bike) attackiert

Km: 2, Steigung: -3
Domingo Nieto (Alkworld) attackiert
Dario Portillo (Luna Team Bike) geht mit
Sixto Barrera (SV Furpach) geht mit
Martin Camarena (Luna Team Bike) attackiert
Martin Chambi (Alkworld) attackiert
Christopher Tevez (SV Furpach) geht mit
Hilario Rimas (Luna Team Bike) geht mit
Miguel Apaza (Luna Team Bike) geht mit
Km: 1, Steigung: 1
Marcelo Parra (Luna Team Bike) attackiert

Luna Team Bike: as you prefere
Alkworld: If you refuse to play by the rules, I can do that
Luna Team Bike: simple
Luna Team Bike: open a post them
Alkworld: or do the rules not apply to you?
Alkworld: the three in front are from the team attack, you have to drop one of them
Luna Team Bike: now is your problem fair friend
Luna Team Bike: two I took them off I did too much too
Alkworld: When are you going to drop another one?
Alkworld: of that team attack
Alkworld: still 3 riders there
Alkworld: rule 3
Alkworld: still a team attack
Luna Team Bike: i'm only follw
Luna Team Bike: ok
Alkworld: please drop two riders
Alkworld: team attack

[Robyklebt]

Looks to me that the dropping back was not really what it should be either.
Drop back should mean to the peloton or the group that the riders where before. None of the dropped guys attacked again later, which means they just dropped from the group, then rode back up to the group. Of course now Luna has 0 riders left in the peloton. But after km 2 he still had 3 left, so with waiting for leader, the correct action surely could have been taken.

But then we're used to this kind of behavior by Luna. He accuses everybody that doesn't ride like he wants of being a multi (is he one too? open question) but then doesn't follow the rules himself and likes to insult people as well.

[simon-bolivar]

there was no willingness, I followed yours, I dropped two my pullers, I do not understand why I had to drop it 3. My team was at 30 seconds, I would have taken you back.
I don't deliberately this, you know, and your hatred for a race that you never won, seems to me excessive

[simon-bolivar]

unfortunately once again you have shown that person you are. finds an insult in my words and I apologize, otherwise you will do it
Bravo to win, but you don't know how to lose...

[Robyklebt]

Find insults?

Easy:

Yea and also let's hang him...

With live stream?

With your sister as a star guest.. is perfect

If I had written that I would have had to pay another fine.

So you lied. You answered me once again. L I A R!

You are right, but when i find an idiot of that level it's hard to resist.. sorry

Idiot?

So, insult found. No need to apologize, I don't care enough, but your interpretation of the fairness rules today plus the insults show what kind of person you are.
And actually it's not about winning, it's about trying to win. Fairly.
Try it. Be honest, be open, be fair. Not that difficult.

[Alkworld]

there was no willingness, I followed yours, I dropped two my pullers, I do not understand why I had to drop it 3. My team was at 30 seconds, I would have taken you back.
I don't deliberately this, you know, and your hatred for a race that you never won, seems to me excessive

I'm not sure who you are addressing now, but what I can say is, that it's pretty clear that you should have dropped two of the riders that came to the leading group because of the team attack. Furthermore, those two should have dropped behind your group coming later (dropping to the peloton was technically no longer possible). Only because of the team attack you had eight riders ahead available, while legally you would only have had six. The additional two wouldn't even be allowed to attack later on due to rule 2 (5 successul attacks already).

[simon-bolivar]

if you are provoked I feel the least, because I did not put the whole post?. Even threats of death, one said anything but some idiot with ironic comments, the yours, but you see what you want.
about your friend who defends, where he is now? I'm not surprised, maybe tomorrow restarted..
You are no better than anyone ..
only blablblabla, this is not fairplay but only far west..

[Robyklebt]

So you are calling me idiot now? Did I get that correctly? That was fast, from "I didn't insult, show me where", I show you, next thing you do is you insult again.

Anyway, let's explain that to you slowly.
1
You attack at km 1 with Parra. He is legal.
Km 2 one attack, 3 follow. That's 4. 2 of these 4 are legal, you can decide which 2. 2 are illegal. Rule number 3
So you needed to drop 2 of the 4. But you dropped only 1 of the 4, you needed to drop 2!!
Yes, you dropped 1 plus Parra. But Parra was legal. He could stay in front whatever else happens, you can't just transfer his legal status to another rider. You didn't need to drop 3, just 2, but 2 from the km where the infraction happened. Doesn't matter that it wasn't on purpose.

Do you understand that?

2
The dropping wasn't done correctly. You need to drop those 2 to where they came from. To the peloton in this case. You clearly didn't, you dropped them and then rode back up to the group with them. Which still made you profit from the infraction at km 2. The whole point of dropping is that you don't profit from it, droppings like these are not sufficient, you need to drop properly, so that you don't get a benefit from any team attack.
If you had dropped 2 guys correctly (and the correct ones) you then would only have had a maximum of 7 in front (drop the attacking guy, leave 2 followers in front, you have 3 in front, 1 from attack, you can still go to the front with 4 that attack from the back) without committing an infraction, rule 2.

So there's 2 problems here.
Are they important for the race result? No, you would have won anyway. But that's not a reason to just ignore rules, they are there for a reason.

As "for this is not fairplay, only far west". Well, you are the guy who doesn't follow the rules in this case. And insults. Again. So stop trying to claim you're Tex Willer...

[simon-bolivar]

What sense does it have to talk to someone who does not know what he says?

That credible can have mister big donkey, that only in the first Fair Play page has two open posts against him for insults.(surely knowing the character, there have been two mistakes ..) And I'm still losing time answering him, really ? .. without shame

1) I have made mistakes I will be judged by who will certainly not by tex willer
2) if you insult me i'm difending my self (read the first kikko post and your comments)
3) if in yesterday's chat room I insulted alk, I apologize, if it was not, it is he who should apologize with me

The morale of one with the credibility of this gentleman is not unacceptable

[Robyklebt]

A simple thank you for explaining the rule, since you clearly didn't get it, see the quote below, would have been appropriate. Or no answer at all.

I do not understand why I had to drop it 3

Do you now understand why Alk demanded that you drop another one?

As for me insulting you, show the post.. .you can't, because I didn't insult you. Grow up.

And thanks for the comedy:

3) if in yesterday's chat room I insulted alk, I apologize, if it was not, it is he who should apologize with me