Talk:Tour de France/Archive 2

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


 * 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_%28sport%29 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)

Team Time Trial section
Can anyone help with this? It's a mess, despite the best of intentions. (Hint: there won't be one this year). I'd do it, but my bike is rusting. -- BitQuirky 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

History
The history section of this article could indeed be improved a lot. Actually, the current "history" section isn't really a history section, but rather an "overview" or "description" of what the Tour de France is. An extensive history section (which should be wikified) can be found on e.g. the Dutch wikipedia, or the Franch wikipedia for a chronological overview of some organisational changes or events. The German article is actually quite balanced...

I also think the "doping" and "deaths" sections are a bit too prominent in the article. They should come AFTER a description of the stages and the jerseys, after all: the Tour is about cycling (=stages and jerseys), not about doping or dying... --LimoWreck 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've bumped down the Doping and Deaths section to under Tour Culture, but I've made it a major heading - it has been going on since the Tour bagan, so it seemed (sadly) worthy of a major heading.kju 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Tour Stage victory
Winning a Tour de France stage is considered a great pro cycling achievement, more prestigious than winning most single day races, regardless of one's overall standing in the GC. This is not really true. People tend to think so, because of the big deal that is made of the Tour de France every year, but if you would look at the stage winners of 5 or 10 years ago, you will find that most have long been forgotten. This is not true for someone who wins a big single-day race, you can go back 30 years and you will still recognize most of the names. Piet 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed... at the moment of winning, a stage victory has a great importance and value; but years later, only memorable stages (mountain stages, champs elysées,... prologues for some riders, ...) will be remembered. Also, for champions who won many stages during their career, the total of number is considered as a great achievement, not each individual victory. For less talented riders, that don't accumulate many victories, one tour stage victory may indeed be their biggest achievement on their record of achievements, it won't be an event that will be remembered years after however... --LimoWreck 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder how winning a Tour stage compared to winning a typical one day race (not something as prestiguous or Paris-Roubaix or L-B-L) makes a difference in a pro cyclist's bottom line value for next season... For example, Thomas Dekker won  Tirreno-Adriatico this year.  Say he also wins a stage in this year's Tour.  Which would be more prestigious?  Which would help his contract for next year more?  I think the reason why Tour stages are particularly prestigious is because of the understood high caliber of the competition.  You're racing against the best of the best, and you won.  Not only that, but you get a lot more attention for your sponsor when you win a Tour stage than when you win a much less noticed/watched typical one-day race.   That's what makes winning Tour stages so prestigious.  What is "remembered" 20 years later by those of us who pay attention to such trivia is another matter altogether.  --Serge 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the things are related. Smaller tours or one day races are important, however, their importance varies somewhat in different countries, for different nationalitities... esp. for the general public. Winning a minor Flemish classic will be remembered better in Belgium than winning a Spanish one week tour. Also commercially in Belgium this will have more value. However, for a Spanish rider of a spanish team, this victory will be looked at differently. However, the Tour is the one race that has massive media attention... for the public and the Dutch press, a tour stage victory of Dekker will be more prestigious; I suppose also the rider will think of it as more prestigious. However, to prove his physical possibilities and value, the Tirreno victory may and will be a better indicator indeed... --LimoWreck 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

how close to the finish line do you have to be to not be penalised in the GC in a crash?
i always thought that it was 1 Km from the finish line. that that is partly the reason why they put the red pennant there; once you cross it you are safe. but in the july 3rd, 2006 stage of the tour, there was a crash approx 3 Km from the finish and the riders who whent down where not penalised as far as time. does anyone know the exact rule? this has started some back and forth editing of this fact in the article. uri budnik 05:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The old rule up until 2005 was 1km before the finish line. As of 2006 it has been extended to 3km. Bfg 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I don't believe that Doping at the Tour de France should be merged into this article because this article is already longer than preferrable. The section should be shortened and the Doping at the Tour de France article should contain the relevant information.-- Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  )  06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Doping is a relevant topic for this article if it is limited to a short, concise subsection, but the doping issue itself is too complex and contains way too much information to include here. It definitely deserves/requires its own article, much as, say, an in-depth treatment of the Clinton impeachment deserves to be separate from the article "President of the United States."--Supersexyspacemonkey 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Largest Annual Professional Sporting Event in the World
Ok, I have seen this bit reverted and edited and argued and modified back and forth by lots of different people for quite some time now, so let's discuss it and get the facts straight. :o)

As far as I know, there are sports with greater numbers of paticipants, such as marathons, but they are not professional sporting events; there also might be some sports with greater numbers of professional athletes, but they are not yearly events. So, the combination of "annual" and "professional" indeed does makes this the largest sporting event in the world, not merely in terms of spectators or viewers or whatnot, but in terms of participation.

If I am incorrect, then please list the specific examples that prove me wrong, so that they can remain here for quick and easy future reference in the event of further editing disputes.

Thank you. :o)

--Supersexyspacemonkey 17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said last time, there must be hundreds such events, in both atheletics and team sports. Here is one.  To avoid future editing disputes, just never re-add any disputed claim without an autoritative reference.  You need evidence to put information in the encyclopedia, not to remove it.


 * I'll also remove the "largest event in term of spectactors". I have seen "the largest event" claim repeated many times, but never something like a primary source with details of how that number have been reached.  So it basically has the status of an urban legend.  We do no service to reader by repeating it here.  If you re-add it, please provide a source.--Per Abrahamsen 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Abrahamsen!


 * 1. I find the statement "there must be hundreds of such events" to be highly implausible. Quite the contrary, people seem to find it impossible to name even a single other annual professional sport that involves in excess of 100 participants. The example you linked was of a multi-sporting event, but the issue here is any one given sport. I also did not notice in the article whether it was professional or amateur. It seems to me self-evident that either no other single, annual, professional sport features in excess of a hundred players, or there are only a handful of obscure events of this nature, so obscure that relatively few people have ever heard of them, because nobody ever cites them.


 * 2. That is not to say that it is anyone's obligation to prove a negative, and your statement that "You need evidence to put information in the encyclopedia, not to remove it" is generally true and is generally a good rule of thumb. But, when a reasonable amount of time elapses during which nobody seems able to identify this mystery sport, that's larger than the Tour, then common sense dictates that the assertion can be taken for granted until proven otherwise, which is very distinct from perpetuating an urban legend. At times, common knowledge suffices over quantified fact, especially when, over the years, nobody can seem to find a single viable example of contradictory evidence. The number of participants in the Tour is not constant, by it is verifiable, and it is common knowledge that it involves in excess of 100 riders, sometimes far in excess, and almost every other sport, aside from marathons, involves under 50 players. The assertion that other sports do surpass it is the only unverified claim, unless these are actually mentioned. But I am only expressing an opinion and a rationale, not arguing any intention to assert to claim any further.
 * --Supersexyspacemonkey 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wimbledon has at least 256 participants, and is relativley well known. In cycling, both Vuelta and Giro have more participants (198 in their last editions) than the Tour (189 for the last several years). Many classic races have more than 190 riders, such as Paris-Roubaix, LBL, and Ronde van Vlaanderen; the last one had 200 this year.
 * It is plausible that the Tour is the largest annual event in terms of spectators. There could easily be 5 to 10 million spectators on the roadside each year. However, that is my own estimate, and to include it in the article, we would need to cite a credible source; to claim de Tour is the largest event, we need to cite a source that also has evaluated the other large sporting events. Eugène van der Pijll 11:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Eugene, I stand corrected. :o) --Supersexyspacemonkey 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

-

Given that the current Tour is likely to bring people to this article for the first time, some explanation for the lay-person could be useful. For example, what exactly is the peloton and why is it called that? What is a domestique? Also a little about typical tactics would be good since it's not always obvious why a cyclist sometimes hangs back, or moves ahead, etc. Some technical info about the bikes too - sometimes they use one with a solid rear wheel, other times they don't. Why? What about the different types of helmets used? 144.139.3.24 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those things don't have to mentioned here at all. That's why the articles links to the road bicycle racing article, where things can be explained ... --LimoWreck 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
Apparently the Timeline cannot be regenerated at this time; see Template_talk:Timeline Tour de France Winners for the technical story. I've added a caption to that effect which I hope is not too obtrusive although it may be a problem on smaller monitors. The Timeline has been reverted to an earlier unmunged version, which I deem better than nothing, as having the munged version is pointless. Another alternative would be to replace it temporarily with a transcluded list, or possibly just a caption saying "Tour winners through 2005" with the reason moved into the HTML comment I added for future editors.--Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, some technical issues indeed. I had the same problem when updating women roland garros winners... no-one could answer me in the village pump however... --LimoWreck 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Resting heart rate?
"Chris Horner and Laurent Lefevre shared the lowest resting heart rate, 35 beats per minute."

I thought Ekimov's resting heart rate was 32 bpm this year. Can anyone verify this? If so, I'd like to make the change in the article.


 * Considering that one's resting heart rate changes over time, I think it should be toned down to "some of the lowest resting heart rates". It seems that there are many riders with resting heart rates around that regime.  If it's very anomalous (by TdF standards), it is worth mentioning.  I think that 32 bpm is not that anomalous.  According to a new source, Laurent Lefevre 30 Today...  14:01:36.  The rider with the lowest resting heart rate in the Tour peloton (32bpm), Laurent Lefevre of the Bouygues Telecom team celebrates his 30th birthday today. .  Miguel Indurain's resting heart rate was widely quoted since it was reportedly in the 25bpm regime.  Now that is anomalous by any standard!  Julius.kusuma 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

10,000 kilocalories?
I think this is a mistake and it should be 10 kilocalories, which is 10,000 calories.

If a kilocalorie is 1,000 calories, then 10,000 kilocalories = 10,000,000 calories per day! The average person needs roughly 2,000 calories. I can imagine a professional cyclist needs 5 times that amount, not 50,000 times that amount. 10 kilocalories matches the 17 Big Macs mentioned.

207.203.80.14 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * correct, the NY Times articles states 10,000 cal. I corrected it --LimoWreck 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that what is commonly called a calorie is really a kilocalorie in the scientific sense. See the Wikipedia article on calorie. Since it is not used here in a scientific context, I guess either calorie or kilocalorie is ok. 195.128.250.106 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However the scientific abbreviation cal should only be used for the 'proper' calorie. So I removed it from the article.195.128.250.106 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen in nutritional literature, there is a distinction between a food calorie (Cal) and the unit usually used in the science of chemistry or physics (cal). Note the upper-case and lower-case difference.  One food calorie is 1,000 physics/chemistry calories.  The article refers to 10 kCal, or 10 thousand food calories (Cal), or equivalently 10 million physics/chemistry calories (cal). Julius.kusuma 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Physical Rigor section
The Physical Rigor section is directly copied from the new york times article (most of the down on the first page). Perhaps somebody could find the Dutch study which it references and rewrite that section with original data. St.isaac 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't plagiarism as it was cited. Now rewritten. :) Dlohcierekim 12:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gambling
This article doesn't mention gambling at all. In light of doping violations and/or unfair disqualifications for doping, it would be very interesting to learn how much is bet on this race, where the bets are taken, how many large bets are being made, and so on. I couldn't find such figures in a cursory search online --- are there fans here who can enlighten us? Mike Serfas 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting? Why? Gambling on cycling isn't "that" populair, that it's a distinguishing point between cycling and other sports. There seems much more gambling in soccer, horse racing, and american sports. Moreover, this article merely describes one single cycling race, the Tour... Why add a section in this particular article? It's like you would add a gambling section in an article about a specific car race or football match? --LimoWreck 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

prize money
Why no mention of prize money?
 * Because you can't simply state "the winner get xx euro". Why? When? Who? Prize money increases every year; and the scheme for awarding prizes are more complex. It máy indeed be interesting to give a short overview of how things are, however, they should be phrased a bit more thoughtful ly. --LimoWreck 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then at least mention that prize money is awarded, with a note that for 2006, there was a total of 3.2 million Euros in prize money with 450,000 Euros awarded to the winner (source: the official Tour de France website). A chart could be included showing the prize money over the years, certainly in the native currency for France (Francs, then Euros), converted to US$ and perhaps to British pound sterling as well.

Until I checked the TDF website, I didn't even know if the TDF awarded prize money like golf tournaments do, or if it was strictly for the title alone, like Olympic competition, which award medals, but not cash prizes. You don't hear the prize money mentioned in the media the way it's mentioned for golf tournaments.

I've updated the link to the Official 2006 Rules and Prizemoney booklet, if this helps. The prize money part is so complicated I'd be inclined to make it a separate article if it was included at all. We should note - unless we already do - that prize money is awarded to stage winners, jersey holders and final winners, etc.kju 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably at the same time you were adding this, I added a small section ===Prize money=== in the history section. You do hear a little about it in the media, although it's just a bit of trivia when it's mentioned. Prize money in the Tour doesn't have the same importance as in other sports, e.g. golf or tennis. Riders don't compete for the prize money anymore. They did however until a few decades ago, before professional cycling was paid really well and riders really could use all the money the won through racing. Nowadays, riders are just paid by the teams they're contracted to. When they finished last or first, they get paid anyway. Off course, winning a race will probably get them bonuses by their teams (probably there are clauses like this in their contract), and even more important: their market values rises; which makes it possible for them to have higher demands the next time they're negioting a contrect, or to make some money besides racing itself (e.g. being used in advertising). The prize money riders make individually during the races is mostly "given away" to the team, and then just divided among the participating racers. It's not that each rider fights for his own money; as he doesn't really need it. It's e.g. typical for the yellow yersey winner nowadays to just split up the prize money between his teammates. This is very different compared to really individual sports like tennis or golf; where total prize money during a career is really an informal way of determining how succesful a player is... Feel free to elaborite these ideas further in the smaller section i added however ;-) --LimoWreck 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Prologues
how many prologues were in the 2005 Tour de France race?
 * None. The first stage was about twice the length of a normal prologue, and therefore counted as a full stage. See 2005 Tour de France. Eugène van der Pijll 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Say what?
Can somebody translate "La Grande Boucle"? (My French isn't so grande.) Also, isn't giro "lap", not "tour"? Trekphiler 09:39 & 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-review
In reviewing the article in accordance with the Good Article Criteria, I have decided to de-list the article from the GA list based on concerns that are noted below. I encourage the editors of the article to work on improving the article in this area and to resubmit for GA consideration once they have been addressed. 1. It is well written.- Pass 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement 3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass 5. It is stable- Pass 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass Overall this article is a fascinating read and I want to commend the editors for their hard work and dedication to this article. I wholeheartedly encourage the editors to resubmit for GA after the inclusion of the needed referencing and even go further and push the article towards FA status (where the in-lines will also help in FAC). This article has the clear potential to be an outstanding FA. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Agne 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Outside of some minor copy edit needs, the article is well written with compelling prose and no glaring violation of WP:MOS.
 * The "quote" in the Physical Rigor section does not appear to be a direct quote as the edit notes seem to imply. Can this be looked at?
 * Unfortunately there are entire sections without any in-line citations, making it difficult to verify the information according to WP:V. I will list the sections here and for brevity sake one or two key items from each of those sections that are in particular need of a cite. However, I would encourage the editors to do a thorough vetting of the entire article, in accordance to WP:CITE to see what other items might need a citation.
 * The sections without references...History; Famous stages; Classification jerseys (and subsections); Stages (and subsections); Culture; and Customs.
 * The article covers all major aspects of the Tour de France and does an excellent job of giving the reader a solid understanding of the Tour, it's history and the cultural nuances.
 * Reading about the maillot blanc and fighting spirit award was very interesting. Are there examples of any cyclists with wiki-articles that could be included as notable winners of those awards?
 * The articles gives due coverage to the doping scandal in a way that is very NPOV in tone. Good job.
 * Outside of a minor vandal problem and needed updating during news event, the article is generally stable.
 * The article does an excellent job of illustrating the subject with a variety of informative and well placed photos.

Stages
Are there statistics on stages. For example, in stages being contested in 2007 if they have been contested before, what was the fastest time, the most recent time. How many times have certain stages been contested? TonyTheTiger 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't. Stages are rarely exactly repeated; I don't know if any of the 2007 stages has been contested before. Eugène van der Pijll 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed... very rarely there are statistics (such as fastest climb on Alpe d'Huez or Mont Ventoux, so not entire stages, and even those statistics are always easy to compare). There's not much use on having statistics either. Bicycle racing isn't Formule 1, or Indy Car racing, or it isn't like track cycling either. 1/ First of all, they're on the public road (of course made traffic-free), for 150km to 250km. So usually, the routes for each stages or drawn from scratch the year before... It would be a coincidence if there's a stage between the same two cities as there has been some time before, where exactly the same route would be chosen for 200km long. 2/ Secondly, statistics about a fastest time would hardly be usefull. A cycling race isn't about starting and driving as fast as you can till the finish. Each race is a new episode with new events. When no-one feels like escaping from the peleton, the first hours may be lots slower... simply, because there's no reason to ride faster. That wouldn't mean the stage isn't hard or exciting to watch, it just has a different storyline. So even IF exactly the same stage is contested a year later, it may be one hour faster, or slower. What if a group escapes? What if one year it's sunny, next year there's strong head wind and rain. What if one year, it's the start of the tour, with a full 190 man strong peloton of riders who still are at full strength, and next year, it's at the end, with only 140 riders left, most of them being quitte tired after 3 weeks of racing.
 * So, even IF exactly the same stage would be contested sometime, statistics wouldn't tell very much ;-) --LimoWreck 22:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)