In reply to ablackett:
> I think the crucial difference is that the crash was caused by something which was put in place by the organisers, so the organisers should take some steps to mitigate the effects of the crash by neutralising the stage. Clearly it's not going to happen, but I feel it's not about how many people were involved, but what caused the crash that leads this to be exceptional circumstances.
I think that's a fair point, and indeed it's difficult to make a fair comparison with Froome's Ventoux incident. In that case I think the justification for giving Froome the same time (ie neutralising the stage for him, Porte and whoever the third body was) was that Froome was wearing the yellow jersey and the organisation was complete shambles.
It would have been interesting to see what they would have done had Thomas been wearing the maglia rosa yesterday. If they had neutralised yesterday, Movistar would have been legitimately up in arms, having executed their plan well.
In days gone by, le patron would have eased everyone up and put the race back together as far as injuries permitted. Not really sure who le patron really is, now that Spartacus has retired - for this race, going on world rankings, it's Quintana, with Nibbles, Yates and Thomas in a bunch quite a long way back, which sort of plays to the 'carry on' argument.