Talk:List of Tour de France secondary classification winners

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

1996[edit]

Since the 1996 winner admitted to doping and offered to give up his title, should something like an asterisk be put by his name?Mbisanz 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Tour no longer consider Riis as the winner [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blogdroed (talk • contribs) 12:22, June 7, 2007.
But as Christian Prudhomme says, it isn't for them to remove the victory. This one hasn't run yet. SeveroTC 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key quote is this one: ""From a disciplinary point of view, you cannot strip him of the title but it is possible not to mention it anymore," UCI lawyer Philippe Verbiest said". I hate it as much as the next person, I didn't like Riis before he admitted to doping and I don't like him any more now. But it doesn't change the fact that he won the race - at this point in time at least. Like I said before, I think this one still has some time to run. SeveroTC 15:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The UCI is the only body with the power to remove an individual's tour win and while it has asked Riis to return his yellow jersey as a "symbolic" jesture, the "time limits for sanctions" have passed. Jan Ullrich is certainly not the "new" 1996 winner. It should be Riis listed with an asterick explaining the circumstances. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.66.114.81 (talk) 22:55, June 7, 2007
I copied the note that was written in the 1996 Tour de France article to this list to. The two notes should probably be the same. -SeveroTC 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2007[edit]

There should be a least be footnote about Floyd Landis finishing first (even if he is guilty of doping). Even the page on Óscar Pereiro states that the 2006 race results "are subject to change pending final resolution of doping allegations surrounding Floyd Landis". Paploo 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling from USADA is reported to come through today. Feel free to revert the recent change (by an anonymous editor) but personally, I would just wait the few hours until there is a definitive answer. If one doesn't come today, then change it to as it stands now (and for the past 49 weeks) - Landis (as much as I personally hate to say it) is the winner. Thanks for your work in looking at this article though! SeveroTC 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USADA does not have the power to remove anybody's Tour title. Who granted them that right? The USADA are assuming powers that were never granted. The USADA have been granted that right over Olympic events by congress but even that is problematical because the USOC and IOC share posers over all olympic events with each sport's govening body. The IOC may have the power to trump each nation's OC (the USOC for the US). Ergo, Floyd Landis was stripped of his Tour title illegally unless the UCI did it. Even the Tour organizers don't have that right. If you ask me we have a legal mess where the rights and responsibilites of all the participants needs to be spelled out much more clearly. An ADA should have the power only to gather and test samples and that is all. But the people at the center of this are the athletes and their rights seem to be trampled on right now. An example is does the UCI have a seven year statute of limitations or not? If they have a seven year statute of limitations, then they have no right to vacate any Tour titles before the year 2005 in the year 2012 no matter what they feel is right. We have a kangaroo court system here. hhhobbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table-izing[edit]

Can someone turn the 'number of wins' by nation into a table?Ryoung122 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding this table[edit]

It would be nice to include in this overview the average speed, and other info as done in the french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmar%C3%A8s_du_Tour_de_France_cycliste Or is there some other place in wikipedia where this is done? Voorlandt 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pereiro[edit]

Oscar Pereiro is from today the winner of the Tour of 2006 Tour de France. Reference [3] (spanish). It's official. Please, edit the article because I am spanish and I don't know to write english very good. Saludos. Loquo 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]


1904[edit]

Seeing as there are notes for 1996 and 2007 for consistency should there be a note about the exclusion of Maurice Garin in 1904? Nick 3216 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add teams next to winner names?[edit]

Since it is a team race (at least in modern times), would it be a good idea to add the team name in brackets next to the winning riders name?--Commander Keane (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Armstrong USADA case[edit]

Some editors have removed Armstrong from the table. Should we wait for what the tour de France decides before removing this. Maybe a better plan at this time would be to add to note explaining the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.59.200 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are already trying to edit Armstrong out of the list of winners. I believe it is premature. USADA by itself does not have the jurisdiction to strip anyone of anything, that authority lies with UCI, CAS, or Tour organizers. Under normal circumstances, UCI would rubber-stamp the decision made by USADA, but these aren't normal circumstances (among other things, there are statute of limitations issues) and the outcome isn't certain. We should refrain from editing out Armstrong unless and until he's been stripped of the titles by an organization that has the authority to do so.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I believe the article should stay as it is (with Armstrong listed as a winner) unless the Tour de France/ASO changes it's official winners list. -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also add the runners-up for the relevant tour to people's watchlists, until the matter is sorted. Lugnuts And the horse 11:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Armstrong's picture should be taken down. We shouldn't be honoring him anymore than necessary. What does everyone else think? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We shouldn't take arbitrary punitive measures because a US government agency, which has no authority over the Tour de France, wants everyone to believe it has authority over the Tour de France. Armstrong is still a 7-time winner until the UCI rules differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do USADA have the jurisdiction to remove Tour wins? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason to amend the photograph. Maybe there's sufficient evidence to say he cheated. Maybe there isn't. The UCI is reviewing the case. They have the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour wins; the USADA does not, despite their pronoucements. Please do not make hasty edits.Scuzzletop (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about listing a "podium winner" and then a "winner of record" column? That would be a streamlined and elegant way to highlight the problems with a problematic era of bike racing while also perserving a record of the races as they were won. For instance, eliminating Floyd Landis from bracket here makes it harder to understand the race. Similarly, eliminating Armstrong for the 7 years he was on the podium does improve the understanding of understanding the race for those 7 years.

71.59.214.193 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend placing a marker (one of the superscript asterisks or crosses) after his name on his 7 wins, and then immediately below the chart just a concise description such as "pending review by the USADA and UCI". It doesn't ignore the issue, but it doesn't change anything here prematurely. TravisS1227 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, while ideally, I'd remove him now as the BBC in the UK, Nouvel Obs in France, are reporting him being "stripped" but for the interim, there ought to be an asterisk or similar, with proper citations from reliable sources. Petropetro (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calma. We should leave the list as-is until we see an official stripping of Tour titles from UCI. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bjarne Riis case shows us the correct precedent in my opinion, he's not been officially stripped of his 1996 title, but is not regarded as the winner by ASO. I suggest adding footnote D to the list of footnotes, explaining the current situation, the stripping of the titles by USADA and the fact that ASO still record him as a winner and listing the 2nd place finisher in each case DM Andy (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can USADA strip UCI titles? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but USADA can request that UCI strip the titles, that's what happened to Floyd Landis. DM Andy (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so until UCI actually strip the titles I suggest we do nothing. It could be recorded that USADA have initiated that process, but right now he's still a seven-time Tour winner. USADA can't strip the titles, we need to see what UCI do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When UCI strip the titles we'll have to change the winners names then, however in the meantime there will need to be a footnote or is your view that there should be no mention of USADA's action on the article page? DM Andy (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a list of official winners of the Tour. If USADA have no jurisdiction over the placings, then nothing should change as far as the results are concerned. We could add a note to say that USADA have "asked/recommended/demanded" (I don't know which) that UCI remove all Tour wins from him, and provide decent citation, but it's a little bit WP:CRYSTAL because tomorrow the UCI may just tell USADA to piss off. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but citing WP:CRYSTAL to defend your position seems wrong because your entire argument rests on what might happen. My suggestion is to footnote the titles Lance Armstrong won in a similar way to Bjarne Riis, if UCI decides to not take any action the footnotes should be changed to reflect that fact, if the UCI does take action then we change the names of the winners with a footnote saying that LA originally won them but was stripped in 2012.DM Andy (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be sorry, and I'm not defending any position, just talking about the best way to deal with the current dilemma. You could add a footnote, but it would only say "USADA have requested title to be removed following judgement in August 2012". If you think you need to do that, cool by me. USADA can't do jack to actually remove the titles, so doing anything else to the article would be speculative. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously UCI knows it's a hot topic, so they should announce something in a day or two (does UCI review the USADA evidence, or is it just an agency to agency request?). 24hrs shouldn't be too long to wait, is it? --Gth-au (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of you seem confused about how the chain of decision making on this works. USADA is a member of WADA. UCI subscribes to all WADA anti-doping regulations. It's not the case that USADA "makes recommendations" to UCI or somesuch. It is the case that by their existing rules and regulations, USADA is a member in good standing of WADA with all enforcement powers of same within the United States, and that UCI explicitly states in their bylaws that they subscribe to WADA and follow WADA rules. There's an argument to make, of course, but for UCI to not honor the USADA ruling, they would pretty much have to drop out of WADA. WADA leadership has gone on record that the USADA has jurisdiction and ruling is theirs to make. UCI leadership has gone on record saying "when USADA takes such a step, they are required to provide us with a written justification, which we will await." 68.5.235.172 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It seems protocol will take till the end of this month, then Armstrong becomes a record breaker for all the wrong reasons, losing all Tour titles. This page has alternative winners, though perversly IMHO they wont be honoured. I feel for 2005 Cadel Evans, a fellow Aussie. Its sometimes easy to forget the honest cyclists who were cheated of a win. Shame. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-153516263.html Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, someone should update the count of tour wins per country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.23.54 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lock page[edit]

I recommend edits only be allowed for registered users at the moment. The Tour De France still recognizes Armstrong as the winner from 1999-2005. Unregistered users are trying to rewrite history. Armstrong may very well be stripped of those titles, but as of today, he has not.Scuzzletop (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, USADA *has* stripped Armstrong of the 7 titles, so the information I added wasn't incorrect. Furthermore, the UCI which is the official entity regarding the Tour de France has already announced that they won't appeal the USADA decision. I see no reason for locking the page. 88.184.45.244 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source saying UCI has definitively accepted USADA's decision? Or a reliable source showing Armstrong has been officially stripped by the governing body of the Tour, not just some US anti-doping body? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/cycling-chief-considers-doping-amnesty-for-riders-officials-in-wake-of-armstrong-case/2012/09/07/1a30840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story_1.html 88.184.45.244 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I just added that he was stripped of his titles (which is true), to make the article consistent, since he was already removed from the list of the winners by somebody else.88.184.45.244 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the official site of the Tour de France, Armstrong is still recognized as a seven-time winner -- http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/records/palmares.html Scuzzletop (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly in the same way as "The title was reassigned to second place finisher Andy Schleck.However, the official Tour de France website still recognises Contador as the official 2010 winner.", according to the current version of the page. It just means that the Tour de France website isn't updated very regularly. If USADA and UCI say that Armstrong is stripped of his titles, then he isn't the winner anymore, whether the website is updated or not. 88.184.45.244 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UCI hasn't said Armstrong is stripped. They said they don't plan on appealing. But there's a caveat -- they haven't received the USADA documentation they're waiting for. Once that happens, and they say they see no problem with the USADA's actions, then edit Armstrong into oblivion. Until then, he is still the winner. Why is this so difficult to understand? Scuzzletop (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UCI doesn't need to strip Armstrong of his titles, USADA did. UCI could *appeal* of that decision in front of the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport), but until such a thing happens (and it won't, they already announced it), Armstrong is stripped of his titles. 88.184.45.244 (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"'The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file,' McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."
However, the UCI is still waiting for USADA's reasoned decision and the case file it requested."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-07/sports/sns-rt-us-cycling-armstrong-mcquaidbre88611z-20120907_1_usada-pat-mcquaid-armstrong-case
This is what they said, which changes nothing. How can you plan on appealing something you haven't seen? Again, I'm not saying they will see the documentation and appeal; but according to WADA code, UCI must be presented with reasonable evidence before they can recognize another anti-doping body's actions (when no trial took place).Scuzzletop (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I'm waiting for the UCI article which says he's been formally stripped. Whatever the relationship between USADA and WADA and whoever else isn't really relevant to Wikipedia. We work with verifiable sources, we don't synthesise reality. Once I see a source from the organisation responsible for the control of le Tour saying he's been stripped of the titles, I'll be happy to remove the cheat from the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page semi-protected[edit]

I reverted all of the recent "stripped of his titles" edits that were made (presumably in good faith). Hence to keep this under control, I've SP'd the page for the time being.

My reasoning is as follows: based on all sources (see numerous links in the preceding discussion), the formal decision on this matter belongs to UCI, and not the USADA. UCI are waiting to review the (just released) "Reasoned Decision" from the USADA. A formal announcement by UCI is probably likely in the next few days, and it is *likely* that Armstrong will be stripped of his titles. However WP:CRYSTAL applies, so until UCI make an announcement to the contrary, Armstrong remains the formal winner of his titles. Manning (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, its only a mater of time though before hes stripped Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I cannot see the UCI taking any other action. But it hasn't happened yet. Manning (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 12 October 2012[edit]

Please remove Lance Armstrong from the list of winners. His name here is an embarrassment to cycling and the US, of which I am a citizen. Per Christian Prudhomme's public statement, I request that no winner be listed for 1999 - 2005. 71.212.139.95 (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: he has not been formally stripped of his titles by the UCI yet, and until that happens we will display the currently correct information. LegoKontribsTalkM 09:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, every editor here on Wikipedia probably agrees that it is certain Armstrong will be stripped of his titles. The point is - WE don't get to make that decision, only the UCI does. According to the rules, they have to respond within 21 days of receiving the "Reasoned Decision" from the USADA, and they have stated that they will respond within that timeframe. Until then, there is nothing to do. The article already notes that Armstrong *may* have his titles stripped, and that is the best we can do for now. Manning (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT list "No Winner" for all those years, are you kidding me? The guys that came in 2nd to Armstrong now are all considered to be the winners. Just like that Oscar Periero from that 2006 race when Landis initially won it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.203 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status as at 17 Oct 2012[edit]

OK, according to Reuters, UCI are required to respond by 31 Oct 2012. They have two options - accept the USADA report (and strip Armstrong of his titles), or dispute the report's findings and take the matter to the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport. Reuters. Manning (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in 2008 table entry[edit]

Please fix the 2008 entry in the table. It is obviously incorrect and inconsistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tour_de_France.

 Done - good catch. Manning (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus method for indicating revoked titles[edit]

OK, the IP above correctly pointed out that Kohl's 2008 Mountain title had been revoked. To indicate this in the table I chose the word "Vacated" (with a link to the relevant details) - this seems to give the best indication of what actually happened. As it seems likely we will being amending a LOT of records in the near future, we'd best come up with a consensus way of dealing with it. Thoughts? Manning (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot will depend on what the ASO say. They presently have said they wont reallocated titles but will leave those years blank. I would go with blanking out the winners and having no winner. Not sure about the word vacated, it in my mind indicated voluntary reluinquishment of the titles, most used in boxing when a fighter moves up a weight etc. These results are not being vacated, they (if it happens tomorrow when the UCI make their press statement) are being stripped, the winner disqualified. Its fairly without precedent for a winner to be stripped and the title no reallocated. But anyway, my preference would be for blank and then see how the ASO record the winner. Dimspace (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the word 'vacated' is being regularly used in both the American and British press to describe the potential action of UCI and the ASO (eg. USA Today, Daily Mail UK, CBS News, The Guardian, LA Times, Wash Post). Leaving it blank bothers me somewhat, as a reader, if something does not match my expectation (ie. that a winner's name is provided) then I would want some form of explanation. If not "vacated" then "revoked" or "voided" perhaps? Manning (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think its really down to what the ASO decide. So far they have said they wouldnt re-allocate the titles, but I would expect a definative statement from them pretty soon. I suggest we blank for now, and then when the ASO announce a decision we just go in line with the wording they use along with link to the ASO press release? I notice on the tour articles for each year it has been left blank. Whatever is decided needs to be consistent with that. Dimspace (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ASo today "We hope that there is no winner in these editions. A formal decision must be taken by the UCI but for us, very clearly, there must be a blank record. This period should be marked by the absence of winners."Dimspace (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Armstrong picture[edit]

I see the caption for Armstrong's pic at the top has been changed, but the picture shouldn't be there at all now that he's not officially recognised as ever having won the Tour. There's a picture of Indurain further down that would suit much better.--Rich Creamery-Butter (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. New image added and Armstrong's moved to the bottom of those others... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, however....[edit]

Under the "Footnotes" section, please fix "however he was stripped" to the grammatically correct "but he was stripped". Thanks.

"However" is grammatically correct in this context. Manning (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are correct but "but" sounds more natural, however.--Rich Creamery-Butter (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason, to change it - both are grammatically correct. But is more conversational and However is more formal, personally I think however reads more naturally. I'd keep it as it is Rehnn83 Talk 10:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that 'however' is actually more correct in this context. "But" is typically used in a future conditional context - "A would have been the case BUT for B". However is typically used to indicate a subsequent change in circumstance: "A was the case, HOWEVER B then happened (which changed A)". Of course there are no hard and fast rules, but I chose "however" as it seemed more accurate for the circumstances. Manning (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote D[edit]

"held indefinitely" should be changed to "vacated indefinitely" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.2.209 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting History[edit]

Of course we should remove Lance's name from the list of winners, because the Tour de France governing body declared him disqualified, however pretending like he wasn't declared the champion for over a decade is rewriting history, which to my mind is a bigger crime.

There should be some mention of Lance's Scandal in the introduction it's big part of the history of the sport and the event! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfamousQ (talk • contribs) 04:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vacation of Armstrong's titles is noted in the footnote section. I'm not completely opposed to including it in the lead, but if we include Armstrong then we need to expand the lead to cover all such disqualifications, at which point we are probably going beyond the "List" nature of this particular article. (The various related controversies are thoroughly documented elsewhere on WP).
If there are a number of disqualifications then it may be worthy of an article on its own going into all of them might end up like the articles about steroids in baseball in that f you do that then you'll end up with something like Banned_substances_in_baseball_in_the_United_States, Major League Baseball, and an infinite number of player and former player pages that have sections for each incident but written in a slightly different style on each page and to see the whole story you have to browse half a dozen articles. Just my $0.02. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change article title and content[edit]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#Two lists of Tour winners to change the scope of this article, please join there if you have an opinion.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Tour de France secondary classification winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Tour_de_France_secondary_classification_winners&oldid=1203697302"