Talk:1999 Tour de France

Disqualification of Armstrong

At this moment, Armstrong is stripped from his titles according to USADA, but not (yet) according to the UCI and the ASO. And the second-placed cyclists in these Tours have not been upgraded to the winner at all.

It is easy to find sources that say Armstrong has been stripped from his titles, but more specialized sources show that there are different points of view for this. These sources are included in Armstrong's article, if requested I will put them here on this talk page, too.

This situation is too complex to strike through Armstrong in the infobox. My feeling is that the UCI trumps USADA, so until they take action, we should just list him as the winner. Of course the prose should mention something about the situation, I added the first part of it a few days ago. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the UCI are not free to simply ignore the USADA ruling, as they have results management competence under the World Anti-Drugs Code. They can accept it, or challenge it before the CAS, but (as far as I can make out) they can't just say "we don't accept it so we're not going to do anything." Not without threatening future Olympic participation anyway. The logical conclusion of results management authority being in place is that the result (Armstrong's result, but not necessarily the result of the Tour) is changed upon announcement of the decision, but there is (again, as far as I know) no authoritative list of results published anywhere that omits Armstrong, and so there is no RS to state who the winners are/are not. There again, the on-line history on the letour.fr site still has Riis unasterisked for 1996, and shows Kohl as 3rd place and polka dot winner in 2008, while the UCI site has a results section that only goes back to 2009, so where would such an authoritative results list be published? Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

UCI may not be free to ignore the ruling, but they are probably allowed some time to study on their report. If my understanding is correct, the following paths are possible, after USADA sends an official report to UCI:

Path A: 1. UCI accepts this report and removes Armstrong from the results 2. Armstrong does not challenge

Path B: 1. UCI accepts this report and removes Armstrong from the results 2. Armstrong challenges at CAS (Armstrong vs UCI) 3. UCI wins the case

Path C: 1. UCI accepts this report and removes Armstrong from the results 2. Armstrong goes to CAS (Armstrong vs UCI) 3. Armstrong wins the case

Path D: 1. UCI does not accept this report and goes to CAS (UCI vs USADA) 2. UCI wins the case

Path E: 1. UCI does not accept this report and goes to CAS (UCI vs USADA) 2. USADA wins the case

We should remove Armstrong from the results after events A1, B1, C1 and E2. We should reinstate Armstrong after event C3.

It may be the case that we never hear anything from it, because nobody challenges anything (route A above). If my interpretation of the UCI rules is correct, USADA has eight days to send its report to the UCI, after which UCI immediately notifies Armstrong. Any appeal to CAS has to be made within one month of receiving the UCI decision (rule 333). So if after two months we have not heard anything from Armstrong, I would vote to remove him from the results. (But I am not a lawyer, the previous info may be wrong.)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Its actually very simple, however, its not so. The confusion in the whole case is the position of the UCI. Generally the system is, if a designated NADA (National anti doping agency) makes a decision regarding a ban, and submits that to wada, then all other NADA's will naturally fall into line. This also goes for all National Associations and Sporting Organisations which subscribe to the WADA code. Which is why we saw the Tennis Federation backing Del Morals ban. The UCI However confuse it completely by being the administrators for the sport and therefore having total control.

The French Cycling Federation have come out today and said they full support the ban, that they think the results for those years should be blanked in the record books, and will seek compensation.

Now, technically, ASO now have to strip armstrongs results or risk incurring the wrath of their national federation. If the UCI decide that USADA were wrong and ASO sided with them, we could see the FFC (French Federation Cyclisme) refusing to sanction ASO races (Although it wouldnt be the first time ASO races have run outside of the auspices of the FFC). We could certainly see multiple appeals on multiple levels from not just Armstrong and the UCI but different national anti doping agencies and cycling federations. Dimspace (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The UCI confuse it. Armstrong has lost his victories (according to USADA) and keeps his victories (UCI at the moment) at the same time. We can explain this in the prose, and we already do. For the infobox, there is not enough place to do this.

The UCI is the administrative body here, so I propose we let the infobox follow UCI's point of view. Of course a note (<ref>Victory removed by USADA, UCI awaits</ref>) could be in place. I can not find the right words for this note, so I'll not add it.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Strike Though link

Currently there are many places in this (and other TDF articles) that list LA as the the winner, or leader. Instead of linking to Lance Armstrong should we link to Lance Armstong?

Total distance

LeTour.fr quotes a distance of 3870 km rather than the 3690.8 km that is given here. This is the number you get by multiplying the winning time with the average speed, and adding a typo to the latter: 42.276 km/h rather than 40.276 km/h (!). I suspect that that may have happened on LeTour.fr while the value here is correct. I'm not sure this can be verified, given that the 'official' source may be in error. AstroFloyd (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1999 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvccbike.com/tour/top_ten.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130826134322/http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2012/10/15/bassons-people-now-see-i-wasn%E2%80%99t-lying/ to http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2012/10/15/bassons-people-now-see-i-wasn%E2%80%99t-lying/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209134934/http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html to http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)