Some thoughts from looking at amstel_Finishphoto_AGR21.png.<p>a) in the horizontal axis, everything changes at 6 pixel intervals, I'm going to call those samples<p>b) I count ten samples as the narrowest of the front tire at both the early samples and the later samples of both riders. (including the fringing).<p>c) there's a two sample gap between the front of the front tire of the top rider and the bottom rider (pixels 835 - 840 for the top rider, and 823 - 828)<p>d) there's also a two sample gap at the back of the front tire (pixels 355 - 361 for the top rider and pixels 343 - 348 for the bottom rider)<p>I'm not invested enough to try to figure out other points of reference to compare, but it seems likely that if the riders were separated by two samples when their front tires entered the line of sampling, and also separated by two samples when their front tires left the line of sampling, that they were separated by two samples throughout that time. Since they would have crossed the (marked) finish line while their tires were being sampled, I'm comfyish saying the bottom rider was 2 samples behind the top at the finish line.<p>If my calculation is right, each front tire took 80 samples to clear the line of sampling; and if it was 2000 samples per second, that's 0.04 seconds for the bikes to clear the camera; might that be enough time for the second bike to have been pushed forward and pulled back such that it may have won; I dunno.<p>also e) now I've used up my evening time I had meant to do something else with :P