Talk:Tour de France/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discussion moved from Talk:Tour de France.


Contents

Terminology

This is the first article I've done anything more than minor corrections on, so please bear with me. I just added a few items to the terminology then saw that the Road bicycle racing article already has them :~( Unless anyone can think of any truly TdF-specific terminology (and I can't, except the jerseys which are already covered) this whole lot should probably be punted off to Road bicycle racing where it can be made extensive and luxurious.

What's the convention for doing this? Move and merge it all into Road bicycle racing and leave a single line in Terminology linking to Road bicycle racing?

I'll have a look back in a day or two and do the work if the suggestion's not chucked out.

Scoring information

If anyone knows how points are calculated/awarded, I think that would make a valuable addition to the article.

I added this information under the Jerseys section a couple of days ago, though really I suspect all of the scoring information should be moved to a scoring section, leaving the jerseys section to briefly say which competition each jersey refers to. (M4rk 9 July 2005 08:50 (UTC))

Team Time Trials NPOV?

I was curious what people think of the statement on the Team Time Trials paragraph that states:

a team that finished six minutes behind the winner might lose only three minutes in the General Classification. This was widely viewed as an attempt by the Tour organisers to prevent Lance Armstrong's US Postal Team from gaining too much time.

Wasn't it also to keep teams from just stacking themselves with the best talent, like the Yankees in baseball? It seems a bit of a damning statement for an encyclopedia... --Fxer 23:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's an inappropriate comment without some references. And even then, is something that is "widely viewed" worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia? Without regard to whether it's actually true? However, I disagree that "keeping teams from stacking themselves with the best talent" was a motivation for the rule change. I never read or heard that, and it doesn't make sense, for that motivation is still there even without a team time trial. And what's wrong with stacking anyway? It's a tradeoff that all teams have to face: the more mountain specialists you have on your squad, the less strength you typically have in the TTT. I do think the rule was put in place to limit the disadvantage of being on a weak team to a legitimate podium contender. Imagine a team losing the team trial by 5 minutes, and their leader losing a final podium position by less than 5 minutes. Would that be fair? I honestly think the point of the rule is to allow that to happen to some extent, but to put a reasonable limit on how damaging it could be. The idea that this rule was targetting US Postal in particular makes little sense since the rule was put in place in 2004 after Postal had won the TTT only once (in 2003). It's not like they had been winning it year after year and something had to be done. --Serge 00:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I put that comment in. While I stand by it, I accept that it may not be 100% appropriate. You state that "I do think the rule was put in place to limit the disadvantage of being on a weak team to a legitimate podium contender". Surely by definition, if the rule is damage limitation for smaller teams, then it is also benefit limitation for bigger teams?
However, Cycling is a sport, and sports need to be competitive. Hence, the large-scale "Tiger-proofing" of golf courses when Tiger Woods was at his peak, which is something few/no people will admit to. Jean Marie Le Blanc and his team may not admit to it, but they may well be/have been looking for ways to make the Tour more competitive recently. Making the tour more competitive = engineering it to play against Lance's strengthes.
Therefore, I will put something considering the above into the article, such as suggesting that Lance-proofing was a possible, but not confirmed motivation for the rule change.
I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 18:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (By the way, type "lance-proofing "team time trial"" into google and look at the results.)
Stand by it all you want, but the allegation of "Lance-proofing" of the Tour is all hype and speculation. The lack of any basis in reason for such speculation renders it not only not 100% appropriate for mentioning here, but totally inappropriate. Even if the organizers wanted to Lance-proof the Tour, how would they do it? Get rid of mountain stages and time trials? Please! Again, the argument that the TTT rule change is an example of Lance-proofing is very weak, since, especially at the time the rule was changed, the TTT was never a significant factor in Lance's wins. All the cynics accused the organizers of Lance-proofing again this year after looking at this year's route. Yet after only one mountain stage Lance had over 2.5 minutes on all of his much anticipated competition (only Rasmussen was within a minute, and he's a surprise for most, and is likely to lose a lot of time in the final TT). Is it Lance-proofing to replace the opening prologue with a longer TT that suits Lance better, and which he could use to put significant time into his rivals from day one, thus giving them a huge psychological blow out of the starting gate? If the organizers are really trying to Lance-proof the Tour, they suck at it. So far, it appears that Lance is on track to win his easiest Tour yet. --Serge 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"Lance-proofing" is a theory? I don't think so. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. "Lance-proofing" is idle speculation. Let me know if you're okay with my rewording. --Serge 20:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, regardless of whether "Lance-proofing" exists or not, it is what I call a "theory" and you call "hype and speculation", therefore it does exist as an idea or a concept. Therefore, your edit seems to agree that putting it in but stating it clearly as "not proven" is the best way. Would you agree with me there? If you do, the current revision is getting closer to how it should be, I reckon.
However, the current revision isn't perfect. You state that the idea is something that "cynical Lance Armstrong fanatics enjoy speculating ". This seems to imply that the only Lance fanatics give the idea any thought. My favourite riders in the Tour are Erik Dekker and Thor Hushovd, so I'm not an Armstrong fanatic (but I do concede that I can be cynical at times!!!).
The idea of "Lance-proofing" was never more than speculation/conceptual/hype, but this speculation/conceptual/hype is still relevant to the rule change and the current revision shows this. But it still sounds biased to me (not that I'm criticising, I realise my original edit was too). I hope you are okay with the current revision.
I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 21:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Following your edits at 21:38 and 21:39 - I am happy with the article. Thank you for your co-operation, now I can go to bed!!!.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 21:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to confirm, I am happy with it too. A testimony to the power of Wiki collaboration! Thank you for your cooperation as well. --Serge 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Rider physical statistics

I think this section should be moved back from the 2005 page to this page. The topic covered is typical physical statistics - 2005 just happens to be used as an example. I don't think the intent is or should be to include a physical stats section in every year's specific tdf page. This general info belongs on the general page. Just because it happens to use specific info from the 2005 Tour as an example does not mean it does not belong on the general page. --Serge 22:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah - here we go again! I'll put the passage concerned back into this article, and keep it in the 2005 TdF article, with a couple of changes in both cases.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

are you happy with that - you might want to check the title (and my grammar) at least. I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 17:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Major deletion!

A lot of content was deleted by an anonymous user without explanation by this edit:

17:59, 14 July 2005 67.142.129.10

Is this content being moved? Without a reasonable explanation for the deletion, I will replace it. --Serge 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

it looks to me like it was vandalism. uri budnik 05:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:A.K.A.47 says: "Yes it probably was vandalism, but this does bring up the topic of...This Article may be longer than desirable - its about 42kb. Any ideas of how to shorten it?

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 17:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Shortening the article

Here are some proposals for shortening this article.

  • Move the doping scandals section to a separate Tour de France Doping Scandals article.
  • Move the "List of Overall Winners" section/table to a separate article... Tour de France Winners.

What do you think? --Serge 17:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, though maybe the doping scandles page could be merged with (if one exists) or expanded to become a 'cycling doping scandles' page, covering the whole sport Robdurbar 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we should create a new article under the name "History of the Tour de France". In that article we could have the doping section and the section about historical jerseys. The history article would also open for more information of the Tour de France's rich history. I'm also for the "List of Overall Winners". --Maitch 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I favour having a Tour de France Doping Scandals page. This could later be changed if it became more appropriate to have something like Drugs in Cycling, but otherwise having a doping scandals article would work. Also, the 'List of overall winners' and the 'Records sections coudld be merged into a shortened section called Winners, and the whole text put into a new article.
I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The "List of Overall Winners" is actually mentioned twice, both with the main table and the sidebar. I suggest moving the main table, and appending the other jersey winners to it, while keeping the sidebar. If we choose to append the other winners, I would also suggest that nationality is replaced by their ISO_3166-1 abreviations, eg. Lance Armstrong/us to keep the table as short as possible.
there already is an article on doping generally in sport and it has a section on the festina affair. Doping_(sport) uri budnik 05:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Considering the degree of doping and the taint that now marks the Tour, I think that there should certainly be some mention of the scandals on this article. You could create a cycling doping page or the like, once there is a section on the tour page. GreatGodOm 13:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Both should be moved. Also Types of Stages should be moved to a more general article. Obviously, there should be a paragraph left for each of the three sections, with a link to the in depth descriptions.--Per Abrahamsen 09:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Likelihood of final stage being a TT again.

In reference to the final stage being a TT (as it was in 1989 when Lemond won the yellow jersey from Fignon by 8 seconds), someone just changed the original statement, "It is likely that this arrangement will be repeated in the future", to "It is unlikely that this would be repeated in the future." Which is it? Is it likely or unlikely that the final stage will be a TT again in some future Tour? Who knows? If we don't know, then we shouldn't say either one. Probably the Tour organizers don't even know. Is it likely or unlikely that someone will win by 8 seconds (or so) again? Again, who knows? Seems like these statements are pure speculation and have no place in a Wiki. --Serge 13:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

We could say "While there is nothing in the UCI rules to prevent this happenning again, there have equally been no clear evidence that a similar final stage is being planned for a future race".
Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Le/The tour de France

I'm curious about the naming, especially the one used below the green jersey. I react to the phrase

"The best sprinter in Le Tour wears the green jersey."

I think the right way should be "the Tour", since the word _Le_ in French is equivalent to _the_ in English.

I'm Norwegian, but speak both English and French, but as such I do not consider me an expert on the subject. Does anybody have an opinion?

i made the changes as suggested above. it does make more sense that way. uri budnik 07:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sprinter jersey

The green jersey is technically not a sprinter jersey, allthough it's normally won by sprinters. The official Tour de france site refers to it in article 10 as a points jersey.

  • I support changing it to the points competition when talking about the green jersey, because that is what it's officially referred to as. It can be noted on the page that the reason so many sprinters win the points competition is that they're the ones who go out and ride for it each and every day, just like how the climbers try to get the KoM points. T-mccool

Largest anual professional sporting events measured in number of participants

I'd like to see an reference to that. 200 particpants isn't a lot for a team sport, that would be matched by a tournament with 10 soccer teams. For the golden league atletics torunaments, I also get around 200 participants counting names in the results. I'd like to see a reference for the claim that TdF really should be the largest measured that way.

Tour de France for women

According to the article linked in

Since 1984 there is a Tour de France for women, La Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale or simply Le Tour Féminin.

the Tour de France for women label for that particular stage race is rather questionable.

You're jaune!

The maillot jaune invention is cred, but I don't see cred for who first wore it; I've seen Eugene Christoff 1919 mentioned. Can somebody clarify & include? Trekphiler 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Doping Scandals section

Gentle writers, I have edited the “Doping Scandals” section. It had become the longest part of the Tour de France article—longer than the sections on “History”, “Jerseys”, “Stages”, etc.

I shortened it from 1600 words to 1000, while keeping as much of the original content as possible. I took out some redundancies, technical inaccuracies and extraneous information and trimmed the ubiquitous rant on how everyone knows Lance Armstrong is a doper. (It can still be found in the Armstrong article.)

Mostly, it was just too long.

Methinks it is nobler to edit than to revert.

BitQuirky 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/u/Talk%7ETour_de_France_Archive_2_430f.html"