The inconsistencies in the charts chases evidence multistages

After Jumping and Nordic Combined, FIS becomes the protagonist of superficiality & agrave; Also in Cross Country. The 'object of dispute & egrave; & nbsp; the' allocation of victories & nbsp; stage in the pursuits of events multistages, a situation that has dragged on for years and for which & egrave; duty to shed light on the discrepancies reported by the official website in the rankings and statistics section.

Thursday 8 January 2015 17 minutes reading time

Nate with the Tour de Ski 2006-07, which like it or not the stage races are slowly taking over from the traditional ones, and have the character to be completed & nbsp; more & nbsp; with a chase that allows the public to understand immediately that & nbsp; the winner of & rsquo; event & egrave; the one that cuts the line first of & rsquo; last stage. L & rsquo; LAST STAGE OF AN EVENT MULTISTAGES This definition shows clearly that the result of & rsquo; last stop & nbsp; can not coincide & nbsp; with that of & rsquo; entire event, as it should be to attribute to those who cut the line first a & nbsp; double victory, the stage and the overall, enterprise that deserves only the man or woman who, in addition to winning the overall standings, get & nbsp; also & nbsp; the fastest time in the final test. Indeed the FIS until 2012 has maintained consistency and clarity, reporting & nbsp; & nbsp distinctly; the two charts. Taking as an example the female sector & ndash; but the situation in the masculine & egrave; the same in every way & ndash; in the Tour de Ski 2007 & nbsp; the victory in climbing to Cermis & egrave; attributed to Katerina Neumannova, and & nbsp; the overall standings & egrave; prerogative of Virpi Kuitunen. Leafing through the official classifications, & nbsp; & nbsp everything back perfectly, even with regard to both the Nordic Opening to the Finals. The & nbsp; issues & nbsp; begin to arise from the 2012-13 season. Opening the ranking of & rsquo; ultimate pursuit of Nordic Opening is instead & nbsp; that concerning & rsquo; entire event, with Bj & oslash; rgen preceding by 1: 21.4 Kowalczyk and 1: 23.9 Weng (click here to open). The rules have changed compared to previous seasons? & Nbsp; No, although l & rsquo; & egrave example in question; the less suitable as Bj & oslash; rgen did also record the fastest time of the race, but not before Kowalczyk & bens Igrave; front Johaug, as evidenced by the pdf & ldquo; Winner of the Day & rdquo; (Click here to open). Anyone who still doubts, in partial ranking of World Cup Distance (click here to open, the points of the match in question are shown in column number 3), the scores of stage are those relating to pdf poc''anzi quoted. If we proceed in time, the same inconsistencies we find also in the Tour de Ski 2013 (Kowalczyk date winner of the climb to the Cermis & nbsp; to & nbsp; post Johaug) and the Finals in 2013 (Bj & oslash; rgen first in & rsquo; tracking final & nbsp; more & nbsp; in place of pi & ugrave; young compatriot) L & rsquo; inconsistency of charts reported automatically produces a distortion of the results of individual athletes. If we take for example the profile of Marit Bj & oslash; rgen (click here to open), the l & agrave; a first error of the filter & ldquo; World Cup & rdquo; which also includes the & ldquo; Stage World Cup & rdquo ;, & ograve you can; note the victory in the & ldquo; 10 km F Pursuit & rdquo; & nbsp; of Falun the March 24, 2013, the race which as mentioned previously won Therese Johaug (Click here for PDF & ldquo; Winner of the Day & rdquo; & nbsp; and & nbsp; here for the ranking specialty & agrave; the distance, where this race occupies the & nbsp; column number 18). To overcome this problem the FIS has thought from the 2013-14 season to enter a & nbsp; & nbsp numerino; between parentheses indicates the relative position to the & nbsp; time to stop, as you can & ograve; inferred for example from the results of & rsquo; tracking final test multistage Lillehammer played tains all of the current season (click here to open the ranking, the number in parentheses indicates the position of the stage, therefore Johaug & egrave; rightly considered the winner so that in your profile (click here to open it), this test is properly assigned to her). Unfortunately for & ograve; this correction is not & egrave; been inserted retrospectively, therefore pursuits final races of the multistage 2012-13 report & ndash; the present state of things & ndash; & nbsp; erroneous results. TRACKING THE FIRST TO TOUR DE SKI Numerino entered to specify the position of the stage on the one hand it helps to understand the ranking of & rsquo; tracking conclusive, from & rsquo; other & nbsp; false completely & nbsp; the statistics for the & nbsp; first pursuit of the Tour de Ski, always Disputatio in Germany between Oberhof and Oberstdorf. This race & egrave; a & nbsp; classic chase, of those that until years & rsquo; also assigned 90 medals at the Olympics and the World Cup: it starts with the gaps accumulated in the prologue and the stage was won by who crosses the finish line first. If we take the example of the Tour de Ski 2013 & ndash; but the same goes for all previous editions & ndash; this criterion & egrave; demonstrated by the results reported both & nbsp; from the classification stage & nbsp; that the & nbsp; points awarded in the World Cup. A & rsquo; other demonstration & egrave; date from & rsquo; absence of a pdf file called & ldquo; Winner of the Day & rdquo ;, this instead in all other pursuits resolved by net times of the race. Quest & rsquo; year & ograve; l & rsquo; tracking Oberstdorf creates a lot of confusion. & nbsp; The ranking of stage & egrave; that correctly reported, but the little number in parentheses indicates the best time of the race goes to distort the statistics. If we take as an example the test male, & nbsp; Francesco De Fabiani & nbsp; would be the winner in front of & nbsp; Dietmar N & ouml; ckler, but if for De Fabiani seventh real & egrave; however, the best result of his career, the tenth of N & ouml; ckler is instead reported as second in the statistics for the placements of the cross-country skier in question (click here to open: ordering for performance, in addition to the usual error all & rsquo; union between races & ldquo; World Cup & rdquo; and & ldquo; Stage World Cup & rdquo ;, the & rsquo; tracking of Oberstdorf is the best of his career in the World Cup despite boast five placings in the top ten, including relay races). Change of regulation? Again the answer & egrave; & nbsp; no: if we open the pdf on the ranking of the World Cup of Distance, 50 points wins the stage are attributed to & nbsp; Petter Northug & nbsp; (click here to open the match in question & egrave; that number in column 7), De Fabiani has 32, N & ouml; ckler 26. Additional confusion & egrave; pdf given by FIS point result list (click here to open), which shows the ranking based on the net times, but that & egrave; a simple document necessary for the calculation of FIS points, useless for the World Cup and general statistics. THE CORTINA-DOBBIACO The same is done for the & rsquo; tracking Oberstdorf goes for the Cortina-Dobbiaco, race from 2010 & egrave; a fixture at the Tour de Ski. This tracking of 35 Km is held after & nbsp; at least three stages, so the logic would dictate that the stage winner is who crosses the finish line first but the one who gets the best net time, because it is not a chase classic played on results of one race. The FIS rather surprising: all six Cortina-Dobbiaco played in history gave the stage win in & nbsp; the one who crossed the finish line first. Take for example the & rsquo; edition of 2013: the ranking stage coincides & ndash; in this case rightly & ndash; with partial classification of the Tour de Ski (click here to open), and the World Cup points are awarded according to this result (click here for the pdf on the ranking of the World Cup Distance: the points of the Cortina-Dobbiaco are available in the & nbsp; column number 8). If only the statistics of this race are attributed & nbsp; properly until & rsquo; edition of 2014, when the & rsquo; insertion numerino brackets we gi & agrave; talked about going to generate the same problems found in & rsquo; tracking Oberstdorf few days ago (click here for the ranking stage, & nbsp; here for PDF on the ranking of the World Cup Distance, in which the Cortina-Dobbiaco occupies the & nbsp; column number 7, and & nbsp; here for statistics on Noah Hoffmann, author of the best time net but not worth what would be his second career win as is shown in the graph relative to "podiums AND TOP POSITIONS BY SEASON (AGE ) "if filtered to" FIS World Cup Incl.Stage "). For this reason, & nbsp; Andrew Musgrave, despite the fastest time achieved today, should not be considered the first British able to win a race first level of cross-country skiing. THE EVENT OF A PROVISIONAL MULTISTAGE Finally, it highlighted a & rsquo; last distortion in & nbsp; the statistics section. If we open that relating to & nbsp; winning the World Cup in the women & nbsp; (click here to open), note how Marit Bj & oslash; rgen are & nbsp; to date January 8, 2014 & nbsp; attributed 71 victories instead of the 70 that actually enjoys. Perch & eacute ;? The answer & egrave; & Ndash; probably & ndash; given by a & rsquo; misclassification of multistage races in progress: the automatic system used by the FIS website gives the results in the & ldquo; Overall Standings & rdquo; (Click here to open that of the Tour de Ski female in progress) as if they were final, going to affect therefore in sections statistics relating to the victories and podiums. For this reason, during all tests in multistage calendar, and the leader will be seen partially attributed a victory of the World Cup in pi & ugrave ;. And in fact the date of the last successful Petter Northug, red bib of the Tour de Ski in progress, & egrave; the '11 January 2015, (three days!) happens day that will end & agrave; The Tour de Ski (click here to open). If we add to this long speech & nbsp; issues related to the proper classification of a single victory & nbsp; masterfully explained by Massimiliano Ambesi (click here to open the 'deepening), here & nbsp; & egrave; easy for those who do not & egrave; Craft run into quite egregious oversights. & Nbsp;

Social media engagement