Talk:Tour de France/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

King of the Mountains photo

Can someone post a photo of a person wearing a King Of the Mountains jersey that shows them climbing instead of doing a time trial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.97.49 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Armstrong dope.jpg

Image:Armstrong dope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why it's use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can Women Participate?

There is nothing here that says whether women can race in Le Tour de France or not. Could somebody mabe look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.251.240 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. But women have their own Tour de France called "Grande Boucle féminine" due to copyright issue.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think they can. As I could to. And you, and us, and my grandmother. But this is professional sport and you have to qualificate to participate. Maybe it is not politically correct to say it, but physiological differences still exist between men and women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.43.128.115 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, women can't ride. They are excluded by UCI rules. Les woodland (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)les woodland

Blank pages

There seems to be a problem opening several of the Tour de France pages:

In each case, all I can see is a completely blank page, and this is the same from both my laptop and PC. Other years e.g. 2005 Tour de France seem fine. Can someone take a look to see if the problem can be fixed. Cheers. Bikeroo (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They all look OK to me (using Windows Vista and Firefox 3.0.1). What combination of operating system and browser are you using? Are you having any problems looking at any other Wikipedia pages, or any other site, come to that? -- Arwel (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've also tested the pages with Internet Explorer 8.0, Safari 3.1.2, and Opera 9.51, and they all look OK. -- Arwel (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not reporting back - I put the problem atVillage Pump where it was sorted. Cheers. Bikeroo (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

About the "prize money in the Tour de France" graph

As mentionned in the first line of the article, "The Tour de France started in 1903". So, how can the prize money graphic start before 1900? Is there something I don't understand in the figure, or do they hide us something? Did the Vatican create a secrete Tour de France in 1890. (And, if it is the case... do you think that the yellow jersey is in reality the Shroud of Turin?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.43.128.115 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a break down of the prize money: how much is doled out after each stage to which category winners? how much for the overall in each category (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of winners needs typographic improvement

It's nice that the winners are listed on the right side of the article.

But each winner is almost perfectly lined up between two consecutive years, so it is impossible to know for sure which year is intended.

If someone wishes to explain to me how to be sure which year is intended, that's fine, but in fact that is not my point. Every reader should be able to look at that this and know what is intended.

The typography should be adjusted so that the winners are directly opposite their years, not halfway between two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daqu (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a function of the Timeline software code, which has been a problem for several years. The problem is that the displayed year has a hatch mark on the same level as the year, e.g. "2005 - ", but the mark indicates the start of the relevant year (this can be confirmed by checking the first of the blank years are 1915 and 1940). Unfortunately nobody has proved capable of amending the code to get it to work satisfactorily. -- Arwel (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

111 overall incl. half stages

Most career Yellow Jerseys: Eddy Merckx (96) (111 overall incl. half stages)

What means 'half stages'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.200.100 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It means two stages in a day, shorters than a normal stage. It does not exist anymore in major races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.43.163.97 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dreyfus3.jpg

The image File:Dreyfus3.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with speeds

I have just read some of the article and have come across a large problem with speeds here. The speeds are stated with a comma (for example 30,000km) rather than 30.000. And honestly, I don't think that many riders can ride at 30 thousand km/h. I'll change it. De Mattia (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to edit it and change the comma's when I discovered all letters and stuff, so I decided to just leave it so I won't muck up any fancy editing which might be in place. Someone with more knowledge of this sort of thing can fix it up, but I'll continue to help where I can. De Mattia (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No-one was suggesting that the cyclists were averaging 14km every second; the comma is the decimal separator in most European languages, and the translation from elsewhere had missed that change. In the Miscellaneous statistics section that has now been corrected. If you meant the table, I deleted this, as comparing average speed with race distance is very much only telling part of the story, as many other issues affect the average speed of the race (average length of stages, technology and team tactics available etc.) Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you for confirming that with me and for getting back so quickley. De Mattia (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Table of winners on right side of page needs fixing

The list of winners on the right side of the article consists of a column containing a list of years on the left side in this column (some designated with year numbers, and some with tick-marks), and the winners' names on the right side in this column.

The problem: The years do not line up with the winners' names. Instead, each winner's name lies halfway between two year numbers or tick-marks.

So right now, I could figure this out by realizing that the last year for a winner, as of this writing (in the middle of the 2009 Tour), must be from 2008.

But a good table should NOT require any such "figuring out" by someone reading it. It should be fixed so that the years and the names line up horizontally.Daqu (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You raised this issue last year. Please see the reply given then. Unfortunately it's a problem in the underlying Wiki software which we have been unable to get fixed. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Why is Alberto Contador listed as the winner in 2010 still? He was stripped for doping and the panel should acknowledge this as it has for Lance Armstrong's "Victories". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.145.219 (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2013

The list has Andy Schleck listed as the winner in 2010, which is correct. Contador won in 2009. The location of the dates is however confusing. (XFEM Skier (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC))

History and mountains section

Hi - I know nothing about the Tour de France so I came here to acquire the basics. So for some feedback, I have just read the "History" and "Mountains" section and unfortunately found them almost incomprehensible. They seem to dive into minute detail about newspaper circulations, lunches, local politics and and specific decisions, and just don't paint a clear picture of how a major international event came into being. Maybe this could be improved by someone who knows the subject? Manning (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had the same impression, particularly concerning the "History" section. I'm not sure if you've seen the section below, #Sorting out an order, but I'm optimistic that this will be addressed. Pslide (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorting out an order

People have been kind enough to add information but the result, I think, is a story that has bits and pieces all over the place. I have combined a couple of the most obvious duplications. Would there be support for reshuffling the whole thing to what I hope would be a more coherent whole? Les woodland (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland

Absolutely! SeveroTC 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Also, thanks for editing in a manner that's easy for others to follow. Pslide (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm away frittering my life away in the quest for pleasure over the next few weeks. I'll get down to it after that. Les woodland (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland

I'd like to add an item to the punchlist. In the Origins section, I think the paragraph beginning, "The incident, said Weber, was 'tailor-made for the sporting press'" could be clarified. It's unclear to me whether "incident" in this case should refer to the Dreyfus arrest or the Auteuil fiasco. Glancing at Weber, p. xi, I thought it was the latter... Pslide (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and make it clear. It's Auteil that Weber meant. Thanks. Les woodland (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland
Thanks! That was quick. Pslide (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That entire section is rather baffling. Why is a demonstration about the validity of a conviction for military espionage "tailor-made for the sporting press"? Is it not more relevant to simply say that the Tour started as part of a circulation war between two sports papers, without reference to the background for the creation of the second title? The first TdF was a response to the Paris-Brest-Paris, not to whatever Dreyfus did or did not do. Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin

Thanks for your observations. It wasn't Dreyfus who was "tailor-made for the sporting press": it was that de Dion was arrested at a horse-race course, an area of interest to sports papers. That's what Weber meant, as I understand it. Had he been arrested somewhere else, things might have been different, but obviously we can never know that.

It's true that the TdF was a reponse to PBP. But there would have been no need for a response had there not been a newspaper that needed to make it, and there would not have been that paper had there not been a row over Dreyfus. I don't think I've ever seen an account of Tour history that hasn't started at that point. Les woodland (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland

I'm afraid that the origins of a newspaper are quite incidental to the later actions of that publishing house, unless it is clear continuity of the same political agenda. The recent revelation of UK MPs' expenses was not meaningfully related to Arthur Sleigh's spat with the Duke of Cambridge. None of the Histories of the TdF that I have ever read have made any mention of it. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Rasmussen's Picture

I don't believe that Rasmussen should have a picture on this page, as he is now a disgraced athlete. A replacement photo of a non-cheating rider wearing the KoTM jersey should be used in its place. Pottski —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC).

We're all volunteers here and I'm sure we'd be delighted if you posted a better picture. Les woodland (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland

Who is not a discraced athlete? Come on, be realistic... You can't change history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.176.210 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

film clips

In the article on Amelie, it says the horse in a cycle race clip is the Criterium International. Which is it? Wschart (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Other sources also verify it's the Criterium Interational. Prothonotar (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Doping section

Am I alone in thinking the section on doping has become a muddle and a collection of dates and incidents? Would there be any support for changing it to an overall discussion of the subject, with a few significant moments, the detail itself to be moved (if it's not already there) to the Doping at the Tour entry? All thoughts welcome. Les woodland (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)les woodland

One more go. Then if there are no objections, I'll go ahead. Les woodland (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)les woodland

Wouldn't it be appropriate to at least mention that Floyd Landis crossed the finish line as the person in the Yellow Jersey. Whether he is considered to be the winner harmed by a bungled test or a disgraced loser is irrelevant. What is significant about his violation is that he was the leader at the end of the race when he was found guilty. To pretend otherwise, which is what the current edit appears to do, is revisionist history.. 66.153.124.154 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Statistics

Any particular reason why the record for wins overall isn't mentioned here? It seems like an odd thing to omit if you are going to mention stage wins... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.206.94 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No good reason, if you ask me. If you want, you can add the information here. Please try not to add too much information, the article is already long. And add sources for the statistics (for overall wins this should be very easy)... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prix du Cinquentenaire

This page refers to the "Grand Prix du Cinquentenaire". Is this the correct spelling of the name, or just a typo? I would expect Cinquantenaire, as the normal spelling for any 50th anniversary. The history document on the letour.fr website (http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/histo2009_03.pdf) doesn't use the exact term, although it does say "Maillot Vert (classement par points) créé à l’occasion du Cinquantenaire du Tour." I struggled to find a decent reference to the whole term (in either spelling). --David Edgar (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally I found something: [Bill McGann http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1950.html] speaks about cinqEntenaire. (Text on website also published in book form.) He may be wrong, but I don't see any RS saying the other spelling.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Tour de France cyclists

It might be a very big operation, but what about an article with a complete list of every cyclist who has ever started in the Tour? Complete with the years they started, their nationality, their teams and whether they completed? --83.128.23.155 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Check WP:NOT#STATS: Wikipedia is not the right place for this. I would really welcome this information on a GFDL-licenced site, but if you start such an article on Wikipedia, it will be deleted.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a website that has all Tour de France start lists available online? Still might be useful for Wikipedia! ~ 85.146.209.49 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the official Tour-page? It is already in the external links. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Olly T-Man - a fake?

The Tour de France page, both in its first sentence and in the summary box (right hand side, top of the page), claim that an Australian called "Olly T-Man" was the first winner of the Tour de France. There are several reasons why I think this is quite possibly a fake: 1. The first Tour de France was in 1903; I don't think people in that day and age would call themselves "Olly T-Man". 2. Being an Australian I have heard many times in the local media that no Aussie has won "Le Tour", so why would they ignore Olly T-Man if he existed. 3. Later on in the Tour de France article, at the discussion of the first ever race, it's mentioned that a Frenchman was the first ever winner (and that he dominated the race). Also, in the column to the right of this is a list of all the Tour de France winners, and Olly T-Man isn't on there. 4. Olly T-Man appears as the title of the summary box, and the image immediately below is labelled OllyTlogo. And, the nickname of the the Tour de France is Le Tour, not OllyT. 5. Finally, the first sentence of the description is "The Tour de France was first won by a gay transformer." This and the previous point are clear evidence that the Tour de France page has been vandalised by some idiot. 130.95.105.214 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When you see such blatant vandalism, there is no need to discuss, just revert it. To ensure complete reversion, use the edit history and restore the last good version. Kevin McE (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Final Stage Competitive?

I continue to hear talk of how the leader after the stage before Paris is the "winner," but, as the article states, it is possible to win the Tour on the last day. If Contador crashes or has other trouble, it is possible that Schleck could win. So why this talk of Contador being the winner? Is there an "understanding" among the racers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.27.66 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: any posting of results before today's stage is over is presumption. It is very unusual for major GC standings to change on the last day (the final day TT in 1989 being an exception), but yellow was challenged unsuccessfully in 1979 and 1987, and top 5 places changed as recently as 2005. The gap is the smallest it ever has been coming into the final stage, and when asked yesterday whether it was all over, Bjarne Riis replied "Let's wait and see", leaving open the possibility of a (probably doomed) attempt at something spectacular by Schlek. Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Spurious precision

We see, for example: "Chris Boardman rode faster during the 1994 prologue stage,[177] Lille-Euralille (7.2 km), with 55.152 km/h." Now, every reference gives the same figure, including the TdF website, but giving the speed to three decimal points makes no sense. The time given was 7 minutes 49.97 seconds for 7.2km; now, a speed of 55.153km/h over 7.2km would give a time of 7 minutes 49.9654, which would also round to 7:49.97 with timing precision to the hundredth. Looked at from another perspective, even assuming that the time was absolutely precise and accurate, the variation in course distance necessary to vary the third decimal of the speed works out at 13cm. I don't believe that when the Tour measures a prologue stage at 7.2km, they're actually stating that the distance is between 7,199.87m and 7,200.13m. Given that the course is not a straight line (so any measurement would have to be made in a number of segments), even top surveyors would have to spend days on site to guarantee that level of accuracy. In any case, the line chosen by a rider would alter the distance run by a far, far greater factor. Finally, in sporting terms the distinction is unnecessary; according to http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/histo_09.pdf, the second fastest prologue speed was almost 1km/h slower, and was also set by Boardman, while the next best athlete in prologue performance was Cancellara in 2007 with 53.66[0]. So, the spurious extra digit makes no significant difference to the relative perfomance of the athletes, and does confuse the issue by blasting the reader with huge strings of numbers. I'd suggest that we give all UCI cycling speed records to a maximum of 4 significant figures, unless there's an example in which there's a clear argument for more precision. 186.105.232.208 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to limit average speed figures to 4 sig. figs, and as stated above, this isn't the only place in WP where this inaccurate level of precision is used to present cycling speeds. Cheers, Jack B108 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

About the "Early Rules" Section

The second graph makes no sense: "Desgrange stood against the use of multiple gears and for many years insisted riders use wooden rims, fearing the heat of braking while coming down mountains would melt the glue that held the tyres (they were finally allowed in 1937)." In sounds like Desgrange insisted on wooden rims because he believed they would fail. I think there's something about tubulars or metal rims missing which would make this sentence make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.235.26 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It would also be great if someone looked into the re-writing of that entire section, because frankly it's quite confusing. Benstordy (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ballon d'Alsace

The article says "The first Tour de France included one mountain pass – the Ballon d'Alsace in the Vosges" and references a book which I don't have access to. I doubt this statement however - elsewhere it's stated that the the Ballon d'Alsace first featured in 1905. Also it seems the 1903 race never went anywhere near the Ballon d'Alsace. Can anyone check what is meant from the referenced book? --David Edgar (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the book and have just checked. It says "The Tour's first major climb was the Ballon d'Alsace" (not The first Tour's major climb). It doesn't make it explicit what year but it implies 1905. SeveroTC 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I modified the paragraph to reflect this. --David Edgar (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Jersey

Is a green jersey given to the points leader at the beginning of each stage, as with the yellow? Also, is there any recognition given to winners of individual stages? I want to incorporate this information into the article. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

All jerseys are given at the end of the stage when the new classifications are made and riders subsequently wear the jerseys on the next stage (unless they are leading more than one classification, in which case the second-placed rider of the "lesser" classification wears the jersey). The rider who has won the stage gets a podium presentation and prizes (including cash) - they don't wear any special jersey or anything the next day. SeveroTC 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of stages?

It doesn't seem to mention anywhere, how many stages there are in the race? Does it vary? I came to this entry to find this out. In the end, i went to the offical site to discover that there are 20 this year. I think it's worth putting this info in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.110.140 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found a reference to the above by seaching the page - not easy to find by browsing. CAn i suggest a specific section that explains the 'stages'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.110.140 (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture Authenticity

The image claimed to be from the 1903 tour shows cars parked by the roadside that, unquestionably date from the 1920's or 1930's. Furthermore, if the image does date from the 1930's, then it's public domain status may be in doubt.Catsmeat (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this page [1], the picture is of Nicolas Frantz leading the 1927 tour.Catsmeat (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was the ugly classicification table added? (Wikipedia is just full of fair-weather tinkerers )

<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 0 1em; clear:right;">{{Timeline Tour de France Winners}}</div>

The new table for general classifications is just plain ugly. The timeline that ran down the side of the page was so much neater and unobtrusive? Why the sudden need to change just because the tour is over? Because the messer-abouters arrive.

I would like the neat time line reinstated (maybe with the team details added) but it was neater and more succinct than scrolling up and down that ugly mess!! Articles should also be a work of beauty not just ragged pages in a scrapbook!109.151.217.193 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now it seems an IP (possibly the same one) has added the table back in while leaving the time line alone this time. What are people's views on this table being in the article? I would favour keeping it in its own article. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, for it's own article, with more details added, such as teams etc. All the relevant details regarding the winners of the various stages/classifications was already in the respective articles regarding the overall leader, mountain, sprint, young rider. By placing nearly all the relevant details on this page those pages are arguably redundant and could be up for merge! This could happen as this article is now less about the race and its history than its rules and competition. However what annoys me more is IP:124.183.133.54 goes ahead and does this anyway. First their ugly table is removed, then they have the temerity to reinsert one again without first bringing up the changes here even though a discussion has been started. Smacks of high-mindedness in my book. Where is the all-important consensus through discussion? 86.171.196.27 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths during the TDF

It says that 20 people were killed in the Dordogne region in 1964. The crash was in Port-de-Couze and may have involved 20 people but only (!!) nine people died and three were injured. There is a monument in the town. This is described correctly in the French Wiki for Tour de France 1964 TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the citation (#192) made for this accident in 1964 is wrong. I think it should be the citation of the last accident in 2009 since it leads to a page about it but I'm not sure if the cite note of the accident in 2009 is right or wrong, so I didn't make any changes on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baris.demiray (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Origins and Birth

Should the Origins and Birth section be added together? I feel like the titles for each sections gives an impression, or connotation, that they're both about the beginnings of the Tour. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Armstrong

He has been stripped from the Tour de France winnings, should he be removed from article? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should wait till he has them officially stripped by the UCI before removing them from the site, for now though I feel a footnote detailing the current situation is the best option--Scottykira (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What about an asterisk on his titles stating something like: "currently disputed, pending disqualification"? College Watch (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty funny the way this has been done with Lance Armstrong. He actually did not admit to the doping and he has not been stripped yet, but it is nice to see Wiki as the communist in chief in charge of stripping titles and removing wins. The art of re-writing history seems to be the goal of more than making history because it is easier to re-write, though these days we can remember the race, who won, and who stood on the stage. Lance Armstrong sits in his mansion with all his money and laughgs at everyone. The truth of the matter here is not what matters, but it is the tests over the years. Taking seven wins actually undermines the race and to give to whatever bloke stands in second only raises of the matter of whether we should strike there name too. Had the race spot been freed up, perhaps I could have trained and ridden and won all seven, give of it to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.67.70 (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum dude, no one is trying to re-write history, people's goal here is just to make the article as neutral and good as possible. By the way, be a man and stop writing bullshit anonymously. If you have an opinion at least have the balls to sign up! . --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Communist? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is serious error in the way the Armstrong case is presented.
Currently it reads "In 2012 Lance Armstrong admitted his guilt to the US Anti Doping Agency in order to stop further investigation of his alleged doping, therefore his previous wins became null and void. [187]".
This statement is false and is not support by reference 187. Armstrong has not admitted guilt and has not been stripped by the Tour. The US ADA will recommend stripping the Tour titles to the UCI, but as the UCI has supported Lance in this case, and it might be that he will not be stripped in the end. The US ADA has no power to strip the Tour titles itself. These factual error needs to be reversed immediately until further decisions to be made by the UCI and other material restored to its previous state. Otherwise, it could be seen as violating WP:LIBEL. Today's editing was premature, sloppy, and as locked as such, poorly administered. 75.128.7.55 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now the information about Armstrong in the entry is still misleading. It should be clearly indicated that, as reported by the mainstream press, the US ADA has already purported to unilaterally strip Armstrong of his titles. This sets up a jurisdictional battle as to which entity has the power to strip him of his titles and so on. In other words, it is de facto not resolved yet, but according to reports the US ADA regards it (perhaps erroneously) as resolved.83.21.133.138 (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nicely put. Except maybe for the "de facto". Until the jurisdictional dispute is resolved, we have no business saying it's "de jure" resolved either, just that the USADA thinks it is. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The USADA, which claims the authority to do so, considers all Armstrong's results since 1 August 1998 null: the UCI contests the jurisdiction of UASDA in the matter, as the ban does not arise from testing, and it has requested the evidence for the ban. USADA does not consider itself as having made a recommendation, because it does not acknowledge the need for anyone else to ratify it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If that is really USADA's position, then on the face of it it appears to be absurd. USADA is not a sporting body. Does it have any basis for this claim, if it has really made it? --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not just USADA's, but WADA's position, and therefore one that every sport with Olympic ambitions has to sign up to. National bodies recognised by WADA have results management jurisdiction when they conduct tests that give "adverse findings". UCI can only challenge that because it is not a case of lab findings, because there has not been a hearing, and because they have not been furnished with the evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think best reference would be the list of Tour winners at letour. [1] When the Tour organizers strip him of his wins, then we'll see the can of worms open as they try to find a clean rider among those who finished below him. Whatever you decide, it should be consistent with other riders. For instance, Bjarne Riis admitted to doping, yet remains on this site without an asterisk. Vagrunt (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with 75.128.7.55 and 83.21.133.138. B-watchmework (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I had been wondering, after the news reports, by what authority the American agency can strip Armstrong of his Tour titles. From what I'm reading here, the answer is, they can't, except maybe on their own personal list of winners. Since the international body has taken no action yet, is it potentially possible that they could repudiate the actions of the American agency? (Of course, they could also uphold it.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Any sport affiliated to the Olympic movement must agree to the World Anti Drugs Code. According to that code, whichever National Anti Drugs Organisation (NADO) under the auspices of WADA uncovers breaches of the code has authority over "results management", ie disqualifying an athlete. UCI cannot simply ignore or reject USADA ruling: all they could do is challenge them before the CAS. However, they cannot do anything without seeing the evidence, and if the evidence is not heard in a review (which Armstrong prevented), they are entitled to disclose of the NADO's "reasoned argument". USADA are rather unimpressed with UCI's handling of the Armstrong case over several years, but whether they have been forthcoming with their file I have not yet read. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. What looks fairly clear to me is that this whole situation is far from being over. Armstrong doesn't look good at this point. But to do things ethically right, all the evidence needs to be out there, or at least to be reviewed by appropriate authorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2012/us/

Armstrong - ITN readiness

Hi, I'm one of the "regulars" who hang around WP:ITN/C, the place which talks about what gets posted at WP:ITN. It seems very likely that a post about Armstrong will be going on WP:ITN soon. We want to be sure Tour de France is up-to-date before we post, and it seems to be that might be tricky for someone not overly familiar with the article to judge. When the article has been fully updated to reflect today's events, could someone let us know over there please? Cheers --LukeSurl t c 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lanterne rouge Section

One of the sentences in this section states "Such was sympathy that he could command higher fees in the races that previously followed the Tour."

I would edit it but I'm not entirely sure exactly what it is saying. Auto98uk (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The cheat

I would be quite happy to expunge all mention of cheats and frauds from sport, but as usual wikipedia is controlled by some people who want only to show the truth according to them. As far as I'm concerned, a simple note to allow the reader to discover who one specific cheat was, is sufficient, without misleading anyone into thinking that that person was actually any good as a cyclist. Anyone agree, or shall we just let his fans continue to try and dilute the article to try and present him as somehow just another drug user in an era of doping in the hope of excusing his actions? He does not deserve to even be mentioned alongside greats of cycling, and any adulation of his career is misplaced and effectively condones cheating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.12 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A very bad faith post. I won't comment on the merits of mentioning cheats, but I will condemn your attacks on everyone who does want to. There can be many reasons to do so, and many ways of doing it. Most of those ways do not have to involve adulation. Pre-emptively attacking all those who disagree with you is very unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
A very very bad faith post. I do condemn your attacks on everyone who opposes doping. Attacking those who do not agree with you is unhelpful. Failing to condemn cheats is the same as saying doping is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.197 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a far greater crime to erase history. For seven years Armstrong won the Tour de France, that can't be erased. Yes he was latter stripped of his titles for doping and justly so. However you can't erase the fact that for many years, he was considered the Tour de France champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.139.183 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
These are very problematical situations. Barry Bonds. Joe Paterno. Etc. And cycling has been rife with cheating. Trying to document the changed history is part of our job. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

How to qualify?

How does one qualify and actually enter the race? --- ke4roh (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The article currently says "Entry is by invitation to teams chosen by the race organiser, the Amaury Sport Organisation."
As I understand it, the 18 UCI ProTeams are automatic entrants, and there are 4 wild-card teams (last year (or always?) all of them were UCI Professional Continental teams). (Also see UCI World Tour.)
The article should really make this clear - there must be relevant references readily available. --David Edgar (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It is laid out fairly clearly in the article for recent editions: it has not always been the case, so the article is properly cautious about presenting transient current circumstances as though it were part of the long term nature of the race. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Can a section be made on the environmental impact (GHG emissions) of the Tour de France ? I expect that this is huge, especially due to the huge fossil fueled caravan (advertising cars/buses/team cars, ...). The 3000 kcal/per biker consumed extra compared to a regular person is used effectively to be able to provide the event at all, but the fact no one records the emissions of the caravan and then compensate this by planting trees, ..., similar to the organisation behind Live_Earth_(2007_concert) seems unjust.

Appearantly, some guys at Cardiff have allready done some research, but this seemed to be around the emissions of the spectators. See here 81.246.129.53 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Polka Dot Shirt Design

Does anyone know a good source for the origin of the polka dot jersey design. I have found two different stories in multiple places and wiki articles do not agree on the answer.

  1. Inspired by youth jersey: Tour de France, Félix Lévitan, http://au.franceguide.com/The-famous-yellow-jersey.html?NodeID=1&EditoID=207241
  2. From the Chocolat Poulain (sponsor) candy wrapper that was polka dotted: Mountains classification in the Tour de France, http://www.cvccbike.com/tour/eddy/xtra_bestanden/polkadot.htm, http://www.topendsports.com/events/tour-de-france/jerseys.htm, http://paperdollywood.com/articles/polka_dot_power.html, http://killingmontezoncolan.blogspot.com/2012/03/maillot-pois-rouges.html

The amount of sources seems to support the chocolate wrapper story but I cannot find the any images that support the fact that the chocolate wrapper was polka dotted. I am also not the only person that cannot find this http://ask.metafilter.com/219967/Le-maillot--pois-rouges. Does anyone have a better source or other information about this. --XFEM Skier (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Records and statistics section

It mentions a table and finishes with a colon but there is no table there? xander (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Elimination by time limit

In the section Tour_de_France#Mass-start_stages it says "during mountain stages, it is not uncommon for riders to lose 30 minutes or to be eliminated after finishing outside the time limit." but as far as I can see that's the only mention of this elimination system. It was mentioned by a commentator today so I looked for information in Wikipedia but couldn't find it. Could someone please add a section explaining this: what's the system by which riders can be eliminated for being after a time limit? What limit? Does it happen often? etc. Or, if the information is already in the article, perhaps it needs to be more prominent as I've looked for it various ways unsuccessfully! Thanks. PamD 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, WP:SOFIXIT: I've added a section about time limits, sourced to a book and the official regulations. I feel slightly hesitant about doing so in an area where I'm sure there are experts a-plenty, all of whom are probably too busy watching the Tour these weeks to be editing Wikipedia. (Even as a non-bike-geek I spent Saturday morning at the roadside watching the ride out from Leeds, and most of the rest of the weekend watching the Yorkshire stages on TV). If the information belongs elsewhere, by all means move it - but please make it findable from this article which seems the natural place to find the answer to "What was that the commentator mentioned about time limits?" which led me here. PamD 10:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Grand Tour stage winners by nationality at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Motorcycles in TDF

I asked a question a couple of days ago on Talk:George William Beatty about the claim on that page that "By 1923, [Beatty] constructed a racing motorcycle that won the Tour de France." No responses so far. If anyone can cast any light on it, can they answer there. GrindtXX (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

King of the mountain points

Below the table of points for each category (or "HC") is stated
"Points awarded are doubled for finishes that are of category two or above."
Is this doubling awarded the riders if (and only if) the finishing line of the mountain coincides with the finishing line of the entire stage ? I.o.w. not applicable at stages with an ending mountain (2-,1- or HC-) followed by a shorter downhill part ? (It could be made clearer) Boeing720 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
____

Which version of English?

An editor has just changed "Colourful" to "Colorful", with edit summary " spelling error colorful". Looking at the article I can't see either {{Use British English}} or {{Use American English}}. There are at present both "color" and "colour", and "tyre" and "tire". Looking at the 2009 version listed above, there seems to be all "colour" and no "color", so probably the established English version is British English, but I'm sure there is a lot of history to this article and I don't feel WP:BOLD enough to add the {{Use British English}} and do the editing needed to make this consistent. But I encourage the regulars of this page to agree on one version of English or another, stick in a template, and keep the article consistent. It could also be argued that the Tour has "strong national ties" to Britain, as being just over the channel as opposed to across the Atlantic, perhaps? Over to you. PamD 22:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There are clearly no "strong national ties". Both Americans and Britons compete vigorously and follow the race closely. Being closer to France doesn't count.
I think there's not likely to be a better solution than looking in the history as you did. I know it seems a little weak in cases like this (I recently made a similar observation at Banach–Tarski paradox) but if a tiebreak is required, that's the one we have. --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
With a French accent? Kind of like Inspector Clouseau? {:>{)> Just kidding? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
MOS:RETAIN says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. ". The oldest version listed in the page history, 2001, includes "coloured jerseys". Has it been "consistent" since then, I wonder? (Or at least, nearly enough consistent to count). Having the template in the article would make it easier to keep it consistent, by making it easier to dissuade those who want to "correct" the spelling. PamD 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you've made a prima facie case, not 100% rigorous, but it'll do unless someone challenges it. You should go ahead. --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly think British English ought to be default for European related articles. Perhaps not so much related to distances, but simply due to the fact that BrEng is taught in European countries. (railway, motorway, colour, lift, flat, cellar, loft, petrol, football, chemist's etc) Boeing720 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Appearances and Finishes

In the 'records and statistics' department we surely need to make some changes to the 'appearances' scheme so that it'll either reflect both the number of appearances and finishes hierarchically ranked side by side in a combined scheme (and simply press the arrow buttons to look up the ranked order in each rank) or to split them into two separate blocks. As it stands now many would find it rather puzzling in what way a f.ex. 13 app. with 7 finishes (Didier Rous) in itself grants any superior notability to a f.ex. 10 app./ 10 finishes merit (Nicki Sørensen). In any case one should be able to look up the riders with the highest numbers of finished races ranked orderly ( can't be that many apart from aforementioned N.S. that aren't already included, which is why I personally route for a combined scheme.) I'm mentioning this why sometime ago I edited in Sørensens results only to see it removed by an anonymous user after a few days. It is well known that TdF riders ( with the exception of some "finisseurs" ) take quite some pride in completing each tour as it's widely acknowledged as one of the single greatest achievements in the world of sports.(should'nt in fact number of completed tours rank over number of appearances ? ) Any support or objections to either suggestion ? Flight714 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not always the most prestigious one

I would argue that Giro d'Italia was of equal prestigious standard until around 1985-89. During the Fascist Franco regime in Spain, was the Vuelta the least prestigious one. (I can't remember much media coverage of that race before 1980, or whenever it was. But The Giro and the Tour were both "unavoidable" in (European) media. But undoubtably were there there three equally hard three weeks tours during the 1980's. France now began its rather spectacular live television coverage, and the Tour began to come ahead of the Giro. (And the Giro and the Vuelta "meet each other", from different starting positions, however). There is not much discussion today which race, that's the one most riders would like to win. And some top names only participate in the Tour. But this have not always been the case, I strongly would like to argue. Just have a look at two of the greatest cyklists of all time Eddie Merckx - he won Giro d'Italia in 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973 and 1974. He also won Tour de France in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1974. He won both races , in 1970, 1972 and in 1974 ! (And won the Vuelta perhaps once). Bernard Hinault has also won both these races 8 times (5 times TDF , 3 times the Giro). But something changed after him, and I believe Greg Lemond to have been the first great name who simply skipped the Giro. So, I would like to make some kind of change to this sentence , from the middle of the lead.

"The Tour de France, the Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a España make up cycling's prestigious, three-week-long Grand Tours; the Tour is the oldest and generally considered the most prestigious of the three by fans and riders alike." perhaps to something like this "The Tour de France, the Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a España make up cycling's prestigious, three-week-long Grand Tours; the Tour is the oldest and has since the late 1980's been considered to be the most prestigious of the three by fans and riders alike." Or something in line with that. Objections ? Boeing720 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed unsustainable claims of relative prestige: I would argue it did not require Lemond to make the Tour much better known worldwide than the Giro, but unmeasurable relative qualities cannot be encyclopaedically asserted. I've moved defining characteristics of GTs into first paragraph. Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Tour de France abroad

Couldn't we include all stages which totally or partly has been held outside France. Not only the start. By the way wasn't the "prologue" held in New York City sometime during the mid 1980's ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've myself gone through all our articles about each TDF during the 1980's, and if they are true , I was wrong in my "assumption-question" about a prologue in New York. But my suggestion remains Boeing720 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary: the very first sentence says that the race "occasionally [makes] passes through nearby countries": there is nothing exceptional per se about those stages that do. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, from such perspectives are also starts abroad unnecessary, aren't they ? I mean, the deciding stages are never the first ones but the mountain stages and time trials (and the Prologue is a too short time trial). "Necessities" are also subjective by nature, who decides what's necessary or not ? I think we are obliged to make articles with a wide scope, based on what's of encyclopedic value and can be sourced properly. (that's - according to our guidelines) Also, Wikipedia is full of various lists, without any particular traces of exceptional values. Like a list of all stations in Paris Metro, or whatever. So why can't we list all such "abroad-related" stges ? I fail to see why only starts abroad are "exceptional". The sentence you refer to could equally be "..starts in, or passes through nearby countries.." I deliberately removed the word "occasional", in what year did TDF not include any part outside of France ? Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Most recently, 2013, why? I'd suggest you study the time gaps in the 2015 Tour before declaring opening stages irrelevant. Nothing is 'necessary': humanity existed for millennia without Wikipedia. But we decide by consensus what we wish to include in these articles, and existing consensus is that listing every excursion onto non-French soil is not helpful. If you want to make it a stand alone article, knock yourself out. And please don't invite discussion of a proposal and then respond so negatively when someone enters into discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't responded negatively. And I didn't state opening stages to be "irrelevant", I just wrote they are far less important (or decisive) when compared to mountain stages and longer time trials. And I presume you're very aware of that. Personally, do I find all so called excursions outside of France to be of equal value as starts outside France. Obviously you are of a different opinion. And that's OK. But could you possibly explain why you feel the starts abroad to be more "exceptional" than other stages partly or totally outside France ? That would be helpful - for me in order to understand your perspectives regarding "TDF abroad". (and I cannot find any earlier discussion of this here, so there exists no consensus of this matter, as far as I can see) I'm not being unfriendly, I just don't get the point. By the way, I've noticed your removal of the part about prestige. It may be perhaps be true today, but until the late 1980's was GDI certainly of similar prestige, I think. Thanks for that change. Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The Grand Depart is announced several months before the remainder of the stages, involves the presentation of teams one or two days before, and are marked with much more ceremony and publicity than other stage starts. There is little no additional publicity to a mid-race stage than passes through, or starts or finishes in, a neighbouring country. We have an article on the Grand Depart, but not on stage starts; Preudhomme has announced a policy on GDs outside France, but not on minor deviations beyond the border.
"I didn't state opening stages to be "irrelevant", I just wrote they are far less important (or decisive) when compared to mountain stages and longer time trials. And I presume you're very aware of that" And I can only assume that you ignored my advice to study the time gaps in the 2015 edition before writing that. Kevin McE (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Women Racing?

Could we have a subheading on woman racing, as there seems to be no overall view on the subject? Thanks great article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.185.162 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be strange, as women do not race in the Tour de France. Maybe you want to read Tour de France Féminin. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stages!

Could we have a few more sentences on stages? Like what types or how long each stage is or even the other countries they can be in. Thanks for the article, it really helped my essay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.185.162 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes we can! Go ahead and write them, that is how Wikipedia works. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

100 years

The Tour started in 1903 so 2003 was celebrated as the century of the TdF. So too was 2013 which is described as the 100th edition. But given 7 tours no longer have their GC classification recognised (ironically one of these was the 2003 edition), that means that it will take until 2020 before there are actually 100 officially recognised winners). The question is whether an extra row should be added to the number of editions (currently 106 at 2019) to indicate the number of officially recognised editions? Perhaps another reason for fans to celebrate the 2020 edition...TandemTriumphans (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep it with the official sources and not invent stuff on our own. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that using well-accepted official sources should be the standard. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense to say that the GC for those years is no longer recognised, or that they are not officially recognised editions of the race. The results, with first place vacant, are fully recognised. Kevin McE (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Accusation

The editor @KevinMce is going back through all of my contributions and deleting them all.... Is there anything I can do to report this vandalism or put a stop to it Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed lengthy anecdotes, with very unencyclopaedic claims of miracle, that were off topic for, and totally altered the balance of, the section. You have many other edits on this page which I have not touched, so please do not make false accusations against me. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Well it was a miracle when Wim Van Est didn't die after falling off that cliff... But I suppose that's entirely a matter of opinion since the definition of miracle varies greatly..... Regarding the accusations of possible superhuman performances I added another citation... Zwerg felt it was speculation, which it was to an extent... I'm not certain why it was reposted it but since it was I figured it would be a good idea to at least find another source Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tour_de_France/Archive_4&oldid=1124476533"