UKH

Ignoring the use of illegal equipment by the Danes and subsequent mild chastising rather than disqualification by the UCI, I can't work out the ruling on the crash.

The Danes had caught the GB team, so had won the race. They also clearly caused the crash, Madsen was in a aero position that made him completely unable to see a rider in front and rode straight in to Tanfield.

It seems that GB won't go in to the Bronze medal race, where they disqualified, which would be outrageous, or is there something else going on, as the rules suggest that should happen otherwise.

I'm as confused as you are!

If I was a commisar Denmark would go through but Madsen would be DQed 

Tanfield got back on his bike and completed. I've heard talk of GB having the slowest time because of this, but according to the UCI rules, that shouldn't matter at this stage in the competition, they are in the last four and unless disqualified should complete the medal races.

If time is an issue, GB were still racing when Madsen took out Tanfield, which should work against the Danes.

You win pursuit by

1. being first across the line (time taken on third rider)
2. catching the other team before the distance 

looks like catching the other team's third rider is sufficient and the Danes did that.

Although you're not supposed to crash into them.

That's not how it works according to the Olympics website though:

The winners of heats 3 and 4 in the First Round ride the final for the gold and silver medals. The remaining six teams will be ranked by their times in the First Round and will be paired as follows: The two fastest teams ride the final for the bronze medal. The next two fastest teams ride the final for 5th and 6th places. The last two teams ride the final for 7th and 8th places.

So, the Brits will race against the Swiss (?) for 7th place.

This means that the Danes interfered with the race then, as GB were still racing. 

GB were clearly not going to achieve a good time with 3rd rider so far behind, despite crash still would have been in minor places and usually when a losing team is caught they are pulled from race and don't get chance to continue and post a time.

The Danes cheated their way through qualifying and cheated their way through in the heats. I hope Ganna rips them to shreds in the final.

Going forward should be looking at why GB performed so poorly, a bit arrogance not selecting best riders and strategy was clear at last world champs that GB was not going to be competitive for gold medal.  Not involving Dan Bingham in team or using his aero expertise when he was involved was bad enough, embarrassing now looking what he has achieved for Denmark and jumbo visma

That’s not the confusing bit. With the rule change making times important, the catch wouldn’t be the end of the race (against teams in other heats). GB were still racing, that fact that they were falling apart is irrelevant to the interference.

Im not sure a bit of shin tape and a vest accounts for taking half a lap off GB.  Anyway they've been warned so presumably they'll be as un aerodynamic as everyone else now.

From watching alot of pursuit Racing in past when a team is caught the race is over for that team and caught team is not allowed to continue to put in a time, catching team can end race there or continue to post time if they were going for world record etc. So despite crash GB were out of the race anyway and would have been given slowest time out of the eight teams when going for minor places.

I think from Danish point of view it was suprise and frustration of catching the 3rd rider so far back and I think they were under view that he must have known race was now over for GB so he probably should have pulled up rather than continuing, not say that's a correct point of view to have, probably just what Denmark were think at time. Obviously Danish rider should have been looking but probably seen other two riders further ahead and didn't expect to catch so soon

If time is still important in the 2nd round, which it appears to be, how do they decide who has the fastest time when there is a catch. Denmark didn't complete 4,000m yet they are in the Gold medal race. No doubt they would have completed a time fast enough for them to do that, but they didn't.

No, but the rules are pretty clear that they should have been disqualfied. These is another question about whether that is proportionate, but the rules don't appear to have any flexibility on that.

Denmark where racing against GB in gold medal playoff, so winner of each play off gets to go into gold medal final race regardless of time 

The rule is you win when you get within 1m of the other team. Denmark got to the 1m mark, then crashed. So the outcome of the race was already decided in the half a second before their wheels touched. 

OK, the loser doesn't automatically go in to the Bronze medal race though, so Tanfield was still racing and impeded (to put it mildly) by Madsen. I can't find anything that says that being caught relegates you to last. The whole thing is a mess, regardless of the fact that GB's medal chances where probably gone the moment Ed Clancy's sciatica flared up.

No confusion over that. GB wheren't only racing Denmark though.

Ps was anyone watching Ganna’s splits when Italy raced?

All the other teams were slowing down to c.65km/h in the last kilo and he dragged the team home at 70km/h in the final 2.5 laps. What a beast.

It would be unfair for any lapped team to gain a time advantage using slipstream of team that over takes them hence why if your caught your race is over.

Should be great to watch how fast Italy go in final with ganna and hopefully we see ganna go for sub 4 minute 4km soon and hour record 

GB probably lost there medal chance when they decided not to select John Archibald a couple of years ago despite the fact he was sea level world record holder at the time 

Sounds like a shambles. as they didn't (couldn't due to crash) set a time they are essentially last of the 8 qualifying teams.

UCI covering themselves in the smelly stuff again

Are the race commissaires UCI officials ? I didn't think they were.  UCI qualified and accredited, yes, but I don't think they are there as UCI representatives. 

I understood it was the UCI giving the decisions on what's legal/isn't maybe its more local than that

no, it is the overtakers responsibility to, you know, OVERtake. if you are being overtaken you have to hold your line on the black and keep riding at pace. remember there are no wing mirrors on these bikes! charlie had no way of knowing how fast they were comming up behind him, he cant decide his race is over and swing up. that would be incredibly dangerous. even if he gets lapped by his own team mates he has to keep riding on the bottom of the track until his race is done (or he gets pulled off by the commisairs).

The danes won the race when the catch was made so deserve to go through, but in my oppinion the front rider should have been kicked out of the competition for the way he (re)acted after the crash that HE caused!

Not in this particular round of this particular (newish) format. I read on Cycling News dot com that it’s the Danes that should stop after the catch and allow GB to ride on for a time. Who knew? I have a vague recollection of reading up on these rules the last time I couldn’t work out what was going on…

Well done Italy. I see we have had some more dubious officiating today.

I bet they don't show that on the pre-watershed highlights

On a slight tangent, can someone tell how you take 8 seconds off a sub 4 minute world record in 5 years?

Aero and gearing, primarily gearing. It seem those that have made the greatest advances have significantly increased the size of the gear and then selected and trained athletes capable of pushing that gear.

There's also the effect of what was billed as a very fast track and (IMHO) a tactical shift from keep-all-four-riders-in-play to only-three-need-to-finish-so-fourth-dies-with-a-couple-of-laps-to-go.

I'm curious why it's billed as fast. I think its the same long straight Shermann design as Glasgow which was considered slow!

No idea, but there had been talk of it being a 'fast track' well before the records started falling. Short of being smooth and hard I'm not sure how you even make a track fast. Possibly a more grippy surface would allow higher tyre pressures? Curious.

Heat? Less drag when it is hot, I don’t know how much difference that makes.

Air conditioning?

I've no idea if this is correct but someone on a different forum reckoned it was partially due to high humidity 

"Most European tracks have very low humidity, and hence higher air density than they're experiencing in Tokyo"

Temperature makes more difference than humidity (higher is better for both, realistically ~1% in density), but I assumed that the velodrome was air-conditioned anyway. Hot and humid might provide lower air density, but physiologically perhaps not so good?

Ganna got them.

I’m so pleased for the Italian team. 

As to the Danes, I suppose you can train all you want, get the most aero you can, but at the end of the day if you’re up against a watt monster what can you do?

Another gold for Ineos 😁

An old article about the Lee Valley Velodrome.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/17100619

I remember when Wiggins broke the hour record at Lee Valley there was some discussion about the weather costing him several hundred metres.

Watching this on catch up last night I got pretty angry seeing a guy who's potentially caused a serious injury to another competitor, by crashing into the back of them, acting as if it was the victim's fault.

I thought I heard a commentator say it was in the mountains and therefore prone to lower air pressure.

He acted as if he was a car driver smashing into the back of a cyclist.

A quick look on google maps suggests it's only at about 350m above sea level which wouldn't cause an appreciable drop in air resistance.  It sounds like it's been pretty hot there so maybe it's partly high humidity?

Maybe not the altitude itself but possibly favours high pressure weather. 

Low pressure is more favourable.

Doh! Meant it the other way around. I just mean that the location may lead to more favourable weather conditions for fast runs.

Boardman has made several comments about the inconsistent application of rules.

Only just occurred to me what an appropriate name Boardman is for a track cyclist. 

Heat certainly reduces air density. 15C ought to be worth 5% or more (not speed just air density)

Well the good news is that he did apologise afterwards.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/madsen-apologies-for-olympics-team-pursuit...

More appropriate than Trott for sure.