Jump to content

Talk:Tour de France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 139.139.67.70 (talk) at 09:06, 24 August 2012 (→‎Armstrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, women can't ride. They are excluded by UCI rules. Les woodland (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)les woodland[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry for not reporting back - I put the problem atVillage Pump where it was sorted. Cheers. Bikeroo (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank-you for confirming that with me and for getting back so quickley. De Mattia (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Absolutely! SeveroTC 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, thanks for editing in a manner that's easy for others to follow. Pslide (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]
Thanks! That was quick. Pslide (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What do you think about the official Tour-page? It is already in the external links. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! I modified the paragraph to reflect this. --David Edgar (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tour_de_France&oldid=508904581"