2020 Tour de France route rumors

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 28, 2019
273
43
580
Don't think Pantani had a chance in 1999 with that route. Far too many TT km and not enough climbing. Sestrieres and the Pyrenees MTF were not all that steep. Probably a better course for Ullrich
Yea probably true, that wasn't a route for climbers. Also, Pantani probably would have lost time on that stage where Zülle did lol... Ullrich in at least 2001 shape could have made it interesting though as Armstong wasn't as good 1999 as he was 2001.

I remember as a kid looking forward to those summer weekends (late 90s/early 2000s) where the Tour would hit the mountains and the broadcast on German television would start at 10 or 11 in the morning. Not sure if they covered the entire stage in full but significant lengths of it.
Usually they'd have a lot of talk and analysis before the stage, I distinctly remember Rudi Altig explaining why Ullrich's lower cadence, pushing huge gears, would be advanatgeous on longer mountains and that Armstrong would stand no chance with his tiny gears. This might have been before the start of the Alpe d'Huez stage in 2001, lol.
Yea, besides that Altig's analysis often seemed outdated already back then.
 
Reactions: Earns1985
Honestly, Wanty never added much to the race. It's beyond silly that Coquard had to wait for this long to race another Tour de France.
I'm glad to see Coquard finally back in the Tour, and Rolland too, but to be honest, Vital Concept don't have that much more to add to the race either. Other than the two mentioned, it's very slim pickings. All in all it's the best (and only) wildcard decision that they could make.
 
Jul 15, 2019
175
17
360
Honestly, Wanty never added much to the race. It's beyond silly that Coquard had to wait for this long to race another Tour de France.
Warren Barguil aside, none of the wildcard teams added much last year. Wanty were at least in the breaks, which was more than Direct Energie managed.

Without Martin it's the obvious decision to leave them out, but I'm not sure Coquard - a sprinter with no victories at World Tour level, not even a second place since 2016 - was a straightforward pick in previous years.
 
True, but Guillaume Martin wasn't setting the world on fire either and with Coquard being the bigger star (+Rolland as an add-on since last year), on a French team at that, it didn't really follow that Wanty got an invite at their expense. Year after year. IMO they should have got an invite last year, at least.
 
WGG won the Europe Tour in '16, '17 and '18 and they had a top10 contender in Martin. TDE took WGG's crown in the Europe Tour and now WGG is out. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with the WGG invites the previous years imo.
 
Honestly, Wanty never added much to the race. It's beyond silly that Coquard had to wait for this long to race another Tour de France.
I’ve no problem with the invite, but I don’t agree that it’s silly that Coquard had to wait. The guy has done absolutely nothing against top level sprinters in years and has been anonymous in every WT race he did ride. He spent his time bullying non sprinters in little French races. I don’t see why that should entitle his team to a wildcard.
 
I imagine long meetings with insurance companies, lawyers, mayors, the sport minister; emails and phone calls to and from Spain, busy days at the ASO headquarters checking how much it´d cost to cut short or call off the Vuelta and run TDF in August instead. :p
 
I imagine long meetings with insurance companies, lawyers, mayors, the sport minister; emails and phone calls to and from Spain, busy days at the ASO headquarters checking how much it´d cost to cut short or call off the Vuelta and run TDF in August instead. :p
They may have to may la Vuelta more than it's worth as la Vuelta is refusing to change dates or shorten their race. They are publicly saying it's not their problem if other races need to find new dates. Also if la Vuelta is forced to give up their dates that will prove that contracts for dates are 100% worthless and good luck getting races to sign back on. The Tour needs to find it's own dates and not mess with la Vuelta.
 
They may have to may la Vuelta more than it's worth as la Vuelta is refusing to change dates or shorten their race. They are publicly saying it's not their problem if other races need to find new dates. Also if la Vuelta is forced to give up their dates that will prove that contracts for dates are 100% worthless and good luck getting races to sign back on. The Tour needs to find it's own dates and not mess with la Vuelta.
If the ASO has to make a decision they will choose the Tour over the Vuelta. The Tour basically generates more money than all other races combined. Same for the teams and their sponsors. Tour generates more publicity and money. It´s the most important race of the season for a reason.
 
Reactions: Nirvana and yaco
If the ASO has to make a decision they will choose the Tour over the Vuelta. The Tour basically generates more money than all other races combined. Same for the teams and their sponsors. Tour generates more publicity and money. It´s the most important race of the season for a reason.
They may have to pay la Vuelta the vast majority of that revenue for those dates. Actually not ALL the teams. Movistar actually is much more dependent on la Vuelta than they are on the Tour. It's not la Vuelta's problem that the Tour can't race in their original dates. So if they have to pay the full amount of revenue they generate just to get 1 week from la Vuelta does that really make it worthwhile instead of moving the Tour after la Vuelta and again overlapping races. Also I thought the Tour was complaining they don't want to be the first race out of the gates, but now it seems like they want to be the very first race the riders go to.
 
They may have to pay la Vuelta the vast majority of that revenue for those dates. Actually not ALL the teams. Movistar actually is much more dependent on la Vuelta than they are on the Tour. It's not la Vuelta's problem that the Tour can't race in their original dates. So if they have to pay the full amount of revenue they generate just to get 1 week from la Vuelta does that really make it worthwhile instead of moving the Tour after la Vuelta and again overlapping races. Also I thought the Tour was complaining they don't want to be the first race out of the gates, but now it seems like they want to be the very first race the riders go to.
You do realize that the ASO is the organisation behind both races? Just looking at the revenue they will do everything in their power to ensure that the Tour is saved. The Tour is the big money maker. Like it or not.
 
You do realize that the ASO is the organisation behind both races? Just looking at the revenue they will do everything in their power to ensure that the Tour is saved. The Tour is the big money maker. Like it or not.
The ASO owns la Vuelta, but different groups organize the two races. La Vuelta is basically forcing a large payment for dates. La Vuelta is also saying there cannot be more than 1 week between the end of the Tour and the start of la Vuelta.

At this point whether we get any actual racing this season at this point may be a bigger question. It will be easier to restart stadium sports. The fact that the French govt is extending the ban on mass gatherings through mid July. We have Governors saying no mass gatherings until a vaccine. They don't want to race the Tour without the massive fans. Sports without fans will be able to start before sports with fans by likely months.
 
Last edited:
Spanish newspaper Marca saying Tour in July, Vuelta in September, Giro in October.
problem is Uci worlds men road race is on Sept 27th.
also will the Vuelta start in the Nederlands anyway with all the riders and staff travelling across Europe?
 
The most practical solution is to re-start the season in August with lower level races - TDF in September, Classics/Monuments in October and Vuelta in November.
Again we are under la Vuelta stating they will not hold a race after the end of Sept. Thus they will not be racing la Vuelta in November. The reality is la Vuelta doesn't want to change their dates at all.


Spanish newspaper Marca saying Tour in July, Vuelta in September, Giro in October.
problem is Uci worlds men road race is on Sept 27th.
also will the Vuelta start in the Nederlands anyway with all the riders and staff travelling across Europe?
If la Vuelta starts the weekend after the Tour ends, it would finish the weekend before the men's Worlds RR. The teams aren't going to care about the TTT that would be the same weekend as the end of la Vuelta.
 
Spanish newspaper Marca saying Tour in July, Vuelta in September, Giro in October.
problem is Uci worlds men road race is on Sept 27th.
also will the Vuelta start in the Nederlands anyway with all the riders and staff travelling across Europe?
I think we just have to accept that if all the big races are to happen it will be with weaker fields as riders will have o choose between overlapping events
 
Again we are under la Vuelta stating they will not hold a race after the end of Sept. Thus they will not be racing la Vuelta in November. The reality is la Vuelta doesn't want to change their dates at all.




If la Vuelta starts the weekend after the Tour ends, it would finish the weekend before the men's Worlds RR. The teams aren't going to care about the TTT that would be the same weekend as the end of la Vuelta.
What organisers say publically and privately are two different things, while the organisation of races and dates is a moving feast - You still have no interest in the Australian races in January ?
 
If la Vuelta starts the weekend after the Tour ends, it would finish the weekend before the men's Worlds RR. The teams aren't going to care about the TTT that would be the same weekend as the end of la Vuelta.
Actually, this is the schedule:


But again, just allow riders to drop out of the Vuelta, and start the ITT, and it shouldn't be much of a problem.
 
Been just watching the Tour 1999 and 2000 on Youtube, gotta say we are lucky with those modern routes. Watching the race from 1999, it feels like it was 50 years ago rather than 20. There we had a prolog, then like 6,7 absolutely flat stages, no doubt about it mass sprints. First long ITT. Then 2 high mountain stages in the Pyrenees. Like 3 (kind of) hilly stages, but the kind where no contender could try anything due to the flat finals, so again no doubt about how those would finish. Then 2 high mountain stages in the Alps, the 2nd with the last climb around 50km away from the finish. After that the 2nd long ITT. Finish in Paris. The only stage which was maybe a bit unpredictable was the 2nd Stages in the Alps, the rest was already predetermined. Baffles me that nobody could come up with a more exciting route back then, it's not THAT long ago right?
Actually those were the golden days of GTs.
 
Don't think Pantani had a chance in 1999 with that route. Far too many TT km and not enough climbing. Sestrieres and the Pyrenees MTF were not all that steep. Probably a better course for Ullrich
Well, you never know. On paper Pantani did not have a chance on the 1998 course as well.
Also Armstrong in 1999 was not yet the same guy he was from 2000 onwards. He was vunerable in that Tour. 1999 would have been one hell of a Tour in 1999 if Pantani and Ullrich would have been there. In 1999 they both could have given a Armstrong a true run for his money.
 
I said before on another forum, about another sport - but it applies not just to sport, but to life as well. Going forward we are going to have to be flexible.
If and when, some 'normality' returns, then cycle racing will be no different. Having la Vuelta in November seems a pretty good idea - the weather is still good, why not?
Giro in September, the Worlds a week later, then Le Tour in October, and la Vuelta in Nov.
However, I'm sure it won't happen like that.
 
Reactions: yaco

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS