Talk:2010 Tour de France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stage type icons[edit]

I know I have argued against these in the past, and I remain of the opinion that they add nothing that is not in the text in the table, but if we are going to have them, then an icon for stages classified as hilly, distinct from that described as flat needs to be made. Kevin McE (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think hilly stages could be joined with medium mountain stages. TdF has different points allocations (green jersey) for different kind of stages, and I believe "hilly" and "medium mountain" go to same group. There is four of those, high mountain, flat and time trial as well. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care which way we go with the distinction between middle mountains and hilly. The points classification is a fair point - but it is also not a bad idea to go with what the TdF officially calls the stages. We can always get a new icon. As long as we don't go back to calling middle mountain stages 'transition' stages, because that was ridiculous. --Steve446 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the point BleuDXXXIV is making, that to categorise some stages as hilly is unnecessary. But since TdF have done it, we should try to do the same if we are able to, so I've asked EdgeNavidad if he could make another icon. lil2mas (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The TdF makes a difference in their stage descriptions, see [1]. They use different icons for the hilly stage and for the medium mountain stage, so we should follow that source, I think. But I cannot find what exactly is the difference between "hilly" and "medium mountain" stages. 2010 is the first time where I see that distinction.
But for the icon, it may take me some time before I get to that. I don't have any image processing program on this computer, I did the other icons on a different computer. But making this icon is not rocket science...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillystage.svg I just remembered that the advantage of the SVG-format is that you can edit it with a text editor, so here is an attempt. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Encyclopaedic_purpose we don't add icons for the sake of it , also per WP:OR we don't invent icons. And finally as these aren't racing for a country the flags should also go per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason Gnevin (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, just checked this out today and was confused by the "hilly stage": what would the points awarded be for those? The official Tour de France site doesn't list them (anymore), so I've boldly changed them back to flat. Oliphaunt (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed classifying stages as hilly while the official site does not seems original research to me. Arnoutf (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The TDF uses Hilly and distincts between flat/hilly/medium/high/time trial, so the discussion is OVER. It's SOURCED, stop vandalizing. 81.184.203.26 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then please provide the source. The offical page mentions which is the provided source does not mention any hilly stages in this years tour - see [2]. So I have not idea what source you use; please provide it. In any case removal of unsourced information is no vandalism, putting unsourced information in, after discussion however is vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: at least until November 2009, the Tour de France website listed these stages as hilly, without mentioning how it would influence the points system. The Wikipedia article therefore also had to classify these stages as hilly, it would have been Original Research to do something else.
Somewhere between November 2009 and July 2010, the Tour de France website relisted these stages as flat. From then on, the Wiki article should have followed the Tour de France website. Oliphaunt was entirely correct in changing the hilly stages to flat stages. Technically we could still list these stages as hilly with a reference to an archived page of the TdF-website, but that would be misleading.
The icons are not Original Research, as similar icons are used on the TdF website.
Per WP:ICONDECORATION, we don't add icons for the sake of it, but I don't think that is happening here, here the icons provide visual cues for the type of stage. Anyhow, discussion about wether we should have this icons suits better on the cycling project talkpage. This discussion has already moved there, so I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything wrong, it's just for future reference. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Stage 15[edit]

Hopefully Wikpedia will not avoid telling readers about the controversial move by Alberto Contador on Stage 15. Traditionally in Le Tour De France when the yellow jersey has a problem, it is considered bad sportsmanship to attack. Andy Schleck had just had a chain problem; Alberto Contador at no point waited for him. An example of good sportsmanship was in 2003 from the Wikipedia Article: "Half way into the next climb, Luz Ardiden, Armstrong's handlebar got caught in a spectator's yellow musette waving in the mid-air and he fell. Ullrich waited for Armstrong to recover." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_tour_de_france

Long Time fans of the Tour De France know that when the yellow jersey is having technical problems, you wait for him. Ask Lance Armstrong what he thinks about that move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.162.87 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So why do you think this is iportant enough to warrant discussion in the main article.
In my view this is likely to prove a minor detail in the context of the whole race overview of 20 days and analyses beyond merely mentioning the fact are undue. Furthermore the discussion may easily lead to non neutral point of view and original research.
If it should be discussed it should be in the overview of stage 15, and probably not here. Also note the Contador claimed not to have reaslised why Schleck slowed down. Arnoutf (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this will be one of the main talking points of the race as it is where Contador picked up the yellow jersey (whether he keeps it or not) and therefore needs some coverage in the Stage 15 overview; whether it will be a significant turning point (in any direction) we will be able to tell at the end of the race. SeveroTC 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course this needs to be mentioned in the article. It would be downright ludicrous for it to not be. We don't need to say "Contador stole the lead" but we can neutrally and factually describe what happened. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be bad sportsmanship, but I wouldn't call it a controversy. Yes, it might be an unwritten rule of the tour, that you wait for the yellow jersey, but it is not a rule.
Contador argued that here launched an attack at the very moment Schleck had his mechanical problem [3].
Apart from some booing at the end there hasn't been much more on the matter. In reality most newspapers either don't mention it at all or don't call it a controversy [4]. FFMG (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I see on the stage article that someone already claimed it as a controversy, ('not a minor one'), I really don't think it was such a big deal. And looking at most papers around the world I would call it a minor detail about the stage at best. FFMG (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to replace the current
In Stage 15, minor controversy arose when Alberto Contador took advantage of a mechanical problem that Andy Schleck had at a pivotal moment to take the yellow jersey, as it is considered good sportsmanship to wait for the yellow jersey when he has technical trouble.[7] Contador claimed that he did not know that Schleck had technical trouble, and that he had already launched an attack by then.[8] Hours later, he apologised for the incident.[9]
With the neutral and factual: "In stage 15 Alberto Contador took advantage of a mechanical problem of Andy Schleck to take the yellow jersey"
And leave it at that for this article. I would suggest to add the details/analysis etc. to the stage description (which I already did and added the wikilink to the stage 15 words here). Arnoutf (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is neutral, and implies no guilt. The very fact that we are discussing here whether it was the right thing for Contador to have done is the very definition of controversy. If it were universally acknowledged to be wrong, there would be no controversy about it. Should we allow euphemistic use of the word (to mean "cheating" but avoidung the risk of being sued) to prevent us from using it properly? Kevin McE (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the controversy here is if the action of Contador was in fact a controversy or not, (or, even it if is, if it is worth mentioning at all).
If I start a section here about Sylvain Chavanel winning stage 2 and call it a 'controversy' does not automatically make it one because we discuss it. FFMG (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The Contador attack is one of the defining moments of this Tour, even if he wins by more than 39 seconds (which, people, he will, he's gonna take 3 minutes out of Andy in the TT). Of course it's fitting to also mention the peloton waiting in Spa for Schleck and others...and not waiting for Contador on the cobbles...or for Armstrong on the climb to Morzine-Avoriaz....really it's this that's one of the big stories of the Tour, to wait or not to wait? All of this merits discussion in the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And no, it's not a controversy because we're talking about it, it is, and it's notable, because many WP:RS have reported on it and reported on the comments and reactions of other riders, managers, etc. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Contador beats schleck by 31 seconds in the tt, meaning he (almost definitely) wins the tour by the same amount of time he took in the 'chain incident'. Coincidence? I think not.. Bevstarrunner (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

King of the mountains jersey winner[edit]

I noticed Anthony Charteau is already marked as the King of the mountains competition winner. This doesn't seem quite correct. While nobody else can now win enough points to over take him, he himself could still drop out of the tour and I don't think he would win the competition if he didn't finish the race. Is that correct? Calistemon (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. He must still make it to Paris. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Race overview[edit]

I've made significant changes to the race overview, in order to add information about the crashes in stages 2 and 3, as well as the last time trial. However, I don't see which one would be the best way to blend the fights for the different maillots into this section. Do you think it'd be most appropriate to have these in chronological order, or would you leave these for the end of the section? 83.50.35.166 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to try and blend them into the main text, although the result might not be perfect. I encourage you to make further changes if you consider it's appropriate. I guess some of the details of the fights for the minor competitions could be omitted. 83.50.35.166 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps consider how I've written that section for the GA-class articles on the 2007 and 2008 editions of the Giro d'Italia and the FA-class article on the 2009 Giro d'Italia (or even the likely-promotable 2010 Giro d'Italia). I think they're pretty good standards to go by, and as reviewed articles I can safely state that I'm not the only one who thinks that way. The section on last year's Tour is okay, seems a bit thin. You've got a good start on the section. It needs a bit of copyediting and a fair bit of expansion. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Were there any "controversies"?[edit]

I came to this article to learn about doping issues during the 2010 Tour de France. I don't see any information on them here. Were there no issues? Are we gathering them on some other article? Is it time to start a "controversies" section in this article? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None were reported. Why should we add a controversies section, I do not see why the article gets better. I do not think there is a class of articles that as a whole would benefit from standard controversies sections. Arnoutf (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd call the whole "to wait or not to wait" saga (waited for Schleck, not for Contador, not for Armstrong, not for Schleck the second time) if not controversial then certainly contentious. There is ample citable critique about each of those instances to include in the article, perhaps under "race overview" rather than its own heading. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree that is should be mentioned (as well as the #28 stunt of radioshack) but ading a section "controversy" is a bit over the top, and biased towards the negative. I think adding such information to race overview would be fine. Arnoutf (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And we have one. Contador tested for steroids. http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=Ap.GYG_lUKrmAt7h.Ht05dI5nYcB?slug=ap-contador-doping So who wants the honor of getting this asshole's win off of wikipedia?

The test should be mentioned in the article, yes, just like it is in Contador's own article and the 2010 Astana team article. And clenbuterol is not a steroid, you might read the Wikipedia article on the substance. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy in advance of any results being stripped, though it is a possibility. The UCI's next step is "further scientific testing." And apparently you know Contador personally, hmm? That would be the only reason to lay down such an epithet. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

contador's disqualification[edit]

in belgium the newspapers are full of the disqualification of contador, he has 10days to go in appeal. will the wiki community already disqualify him? i like to start he debate. Will we do the same like in the Floyd landis case ? like in 2006 ? http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1297/Doping-In-Wielrennen/article/detail/1212940/2011/01/25/Alberto-Contador-een-jaar-geschorst-en-Tourzege-kwijt.dhtml http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20110125_048&subsection=7

We'll wait until there is an official ruling, tacitly acknowledging that we do not have sufficient authority to disqualify him ourselves. We will also be aware that the timescale for an appeal cannot start before judgement has been passed by the relevant authority, which is not the Belgian press. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed by AFP. Time to break it in. --abach (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Read it: "Alberto Contador has received today a notification of one year ban proposal by the Competition Committee of the Spanish Federation," a proposal is not the passing of a sanction. Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, as you may or may not want to admit, his victory is not entirely uncontested. The article does not reflect that. Doping in TdF2010 isn't even mentioned. --abach (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

should there at least be a mention of the ruling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.4.113 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When there is one, there probably will be. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His suspension, sure as it is to be appealed probably by EVERYONE, has been verified. Stripping of results, while a logical consequence, is a different process. If the suspension sticks, he'll probably only forfeit the results from after the test, meaning some results and therefore UCI points (second in stage 12, for example) would be kept. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The ASO has, as of now, not stripped Contador of anything. It gets a little (well, more than a little) thorny and legal at this point, because we have to ask ourselves who has the power to strip what. The UCI has the power to strip points from their super-secret system, but it's the ASO who would actually retroactively grant Andy Schleck the Tour title, were it to come to that. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


I added some text on Contador's clenbutorol case. (Taken from Contador's article, with some details removed.) I was surprised it was not already in the article. I looked at the article history, and couldn't find anything on this case (except for people striking him from the results as if he were disqualified). I also added something on the UCI doping suspicion list. I think it is notable that this list exists, but calling names would probably violate some BLP rules. If I understand it correctly, performing better than expected was one of the possible reasons for a high score, and we don't want to link cyclists to doping just because they performed better than expected.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tour de Suisse stage 8[edit]

This seems to have no direct relevance to the 2010 Tour de France. There may be a case for saying that what happened at the 2010 Tour de France had relevance for what happened at the 2011 Tour de Suisse, but it is not mentioned there. Possibly, it could have a place on either Mollema's or Leopard Trek's articles, but no-one has mentioned it there. If we had articles entitled Etiquette of Road Cycle racing or Chaingate, it would probably deserve inclusion in those contexts. But here it looks like a desire to have a moan about a perceived injustice (and a brief glance at the contributions history of the IP who added it suggests a keen fan of Rabobank, a team involved in the 2011 TdS event but entirely incidental to the events on the slopes of the Port de Bales last year) in the place where it will gain highest level of attention. I'm afraid that comes nearer to WP:POINT than desire to provide relevant information. Kevin McE (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the information (somewhat edited) to the 2011 Tour de Suisse article, as it could use more prose. I agree that it does not belong here.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Contador's disqualification[edit]

Contador has been disqualified today. I added this in the article. One of my edit summaries was 'we should act as if contador never existed...'. What I meant to say was 'we should NOT act as if contador never existed...'. Too bad I can not edit my edit summary. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

From the Tour website: "On the basis of this verdict, the International Cycling Union is likely to award victory for the 2010 edition to Andy Schleck, the runner-up in the race." (emphasis mine). So at this moment, according to the ones who should know, Schleck is not yet the winner of the 2010 Tour. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)