Fignon's claims about the legality of Lemond's 1989 aero bars

[blutto]

-----

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5353

------

...thank you so very much for that reference...unfortunately while it does move the discussion forward there is still much mystery to unravel...for instance getting some reliable information on Ledant's original ruling and the circumstances surrounding it would be a godsend...

...thanks again...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Darryl Webster]

Tottaly agree with echoes re Mosers hour.

His kit was a change in interpritation of the rules in the following ways ( there may be others).
Wheels : Discs, previouslys discs were seen as fairings cus no had attempted to ride wheels were the surface could be constued as "one big" spoke and integral to construction were as previous ideas of covers on spoked wheels clearly couldnt. The wheels were of non standard size, also against the spirit of the rules.
Over socks: It may seem a small point but as theres no nescercery "construction use" its clear these are a pure Areo aid.

The Track Surface: One of the bigest issues and breaches of the regs.
Mosers hour was not done on the same track as Merckx, it was done at a concrete track set in a PE College. A track I`ve ridden as part of preperation for the Junior World Champs In 1980.
Moser had the bottom part of the track sprayed with a surface that reduced friction.

As it was reported at the time the local UCI officials were I`ll prepaired for judging the legality of Mosers ride and with Moser being such a giant figure in world cycling with a big enterauge and media coverage were somwhat overwhelmed.

Add the above together with the admision of blood transfusions and my conclusion is ( and was at the time) that Mosers Hour was a trevesty of the spirit of fair competition and subsequent history sugests the innitial catylist to what has been pro cyclings darkest period.

 

[Le breton]

He has explained time and again that he was not confident about it. Bikes have to be tested long before and you can't change them at the very last moment.
.

Was Guimard still the DS in Fignon's team in 1989? Can't remember.

Anyway, what I do remember about that 3-points rule is that the seat used by Thierry Marie in the 1986 TdF prologue was later ruled against because it allowed the cyclist to push against the backpart of the saddle.

Also, I remember Cyrille Guimard bitterly complaining that an innovation if it was used/proposed by a French team got rejected and ruled illegal while it was accepted if proposed by a foreign (non-french) team ( he was referring to the tri-bar).

Maybe the UCI ruling regarding the "selle à dossier", or "selle à appui lombaire"or "selle à becquet" had some bearing on the decision by Fignon not to use a potentially objectionable innovation.
The saddle is the one that appears on the image here
http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=...appui+lombaire%22&hl=fr&sa=G&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1

 

[Le breton]

He has explained time and again that he was not confident about it. Bikes have to be tested long before and you can't change them at the very last moment.
.

Was Guimard still the DS in Fignon's team in 1989? Can't remember.

Anyway, what I do remember about that 3-points rule is that the seat used by Thierry Marie in the 1986 TdF prologue was later ruled against because it allowed the cyclist to push against the backpart of the saddle.

Also, I remember Cyrille Guimard bitterly complaining that an innovation if it was used/proposed by a French team got rejected and ruled illegal while it was accepted if proposed by a foreign (non-french) team ( he was referring to the tri-bar).

Maybe the UCI ruling regarding the "selle à dossier", or "selle à appui lombaire"or "selle à becquet" had some bearing on the decision by Fignon not to use a potentially objectionable innovation.

 

[SpiTimeCannon]

I remember them riding with this set up in the Grand prix d nations in Cannes.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/laurent-fignon-remembered/138391
Unsafe as the rotation of the fork was restricted.

 

[Big Doopie]

7-11 riders had used tri-bars at the tour de trump/dupont (?) earlier that year.

lemond chose not to use the tri-bars in the opening prologue as he knew the most advantage could be gained in the 70km TT (Dinard-Rennes?) a few days later and didn't want all his competitors having time to try out the innovation.

lemond surprised everyone when he won the long ITT (but he didn't destroy Delgado or Fignon who were under a minute behind). in fact fignon points to this small deficit as the reason he felt he didn't have to gain more time as 50 secs would be plenty for the much shorter versailles ITT. however, he was unaware that lemonds areobars had actually slipped during the earlier long ITT and lemond knew that he could have gained more time.

guimard (fignon's director that year) is famous for saying that the aerobars actually did more harm than good because they restricted the chest and therefore the rider's ability to breathe (very old school). this was a belief that was very much perpetuated at the time. you can hear the old french commentator at the time saying he thought it would restrict breathing as lemond crushed the final ITT.

lemond actually lost time due to his aero helmet as his style was famously that of dipping his head like a swimmer making the aero helmet into a shark's fin. he tested it out later in a wind tunnel and found that he actually lost time due to it. while he certainly did not eschew the use of aero helmets afterwards, i do remember him famously going helmetless for the long ITT that indurain crushed in 1992.

there was some contention at the Dinard-Rennes ITT when lemond first asked to use the aerobars. there was debate about whether it allowed a fourth point of contact between biker and bike. it was in fact eddy merckx who stepped in and said they should be okayed. the fact that merckx said okay was important as it was well-known how aggrieved he had felt about the way moser had used all sorts of tricks to beat his hour record.

fignon had lots of opportunities to try aerobars and use them in the final ITT.

he chose not to.

the rest is history.

 

[blutto]

7-11 riders had used tri-bars at the tour de trump/dupont (?) earlier that year.

lemond chose not to use the tri-bars in the opening prologue as he knew the most advantage could be gained in the 70km TT (Dinard-Rennes?) a few days later and didn't want all his competitors having time to try out the innovation.

lemond surprised everyone when he won the long ITT (but he didn't destroy Delgado or Fignon who were under a minute behind). in fact fignon points to this small deficit as the reason he felt he didn't have to gain more time as 50 secs would be plenty for the much shorter versailles ITT. however, he was unaware that lemonds areobars had actually slipped during the earlier long ITT and lemond knew that he could have gained more time.

guimard (fignon's director that year) is famous for saying that the aerobars actually did more harm than good because they restricted the chest and therefore the rider's ability to breathe (very old school). this was a belief that was very much perpetuated at the time. you can hear the old french commentator at the time saying he thought it would restrict breathing as lemond crushed the final ITT.

lemond actually lost time due to his aero helmet as his style was famously that of dipping his head like a swimmer making the aero helmet into a shark's fin. he tested it out later in a wind tunnel and found that he actually lost time due to it. while he certainly did not eschew the use of aero helmets afterwards, i do remember him famously going helmetless for the long ITT that indurain crushed in 1992.

there was some contention at the Dinard-Rennes ITT when lemond first asked to use the aerobars. there was debate about whether it allowed a fourth point of contact between biker and bike. it was in fact eddy merckx who stepped in and said they should be okayed. the fact that merckx said okay was important as it was well-known how aggrieved he had felt about the way moser had used all sorts of tricks to beat his hour record.

fignon had lots of opportunities to try aerobars and use them in the final ITT.

he chose not to.

the rest is history.

....just remember, history is not the truth...it is simply an agreed-upon version of the truth...it changes as new evidence becomes available...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Big Doopie]

....just remember, history is not the truth...it is simply an agreed-upon version of the truth...it changes as new evidence becomes available...

Cheers

blutto

huh..? what?

that's all you can say after i simply list the facts of the events.

i'm sorry. what or with whom are you arguing?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

....the discussion is about the "legality" of the use of tri-bars in the 89 Tour....Fignon claims they were "illegal" in part because of what we called the 3 point rule...and it was, in some versions of the reading of the 89 Tour history, this "illegality" that dissuaded Guimard/Fignon from using tri-bars...now for whatever reason the results of that Tour were allowed to stand, however at a race just after the Tour that tri-bar system was deemed "illegal" and Fignon, whose bike had them, was not allowed to ride....

...the point is that nothing, to my knowledge, had changed between those two races...the regs were the same...so what applied to the post Tour race should have applied to the Tour...it obviously didn't and there-in lies the mystery...

...now there was one more twist to this that involves another definition of what was "legal" and could in some race official's mind be the defining point for what things are "legally" aero or not ( the three point rule only tangentially applied to things aero, though in the 89 case it definitely has a place in the Tour "legality" decision )( and this twist may explain the Yates reference mentioned previously)...and keep in mind the UCI may have been flailing around a bit here because their onerous ban on all things aero was about to blow up big time....and some of their rules to hold back the aero tide were meant for a different era and their applications to modern ideas were sometimes pretty strange....for instance, for a short while the LeMond 89 Tour set-up was "illegal" because it was an add-on but one piece DH bars were allowed because you couldn't use anything for a pure aero-dynamic advantage but if it was built into a necessary component it was allowed...hence disc wheels were finally allowed because the disc surface was deemed primarily a structural part of the wheel ( like a huge one piece spoke ) and only incidently an aero-dynamic aid...in this period of UCI regs there was a huge amount of hair-splitting and it was even dumber than one could today possibly imagine....and everyone and everything was subject to interpretation and usually amid mass confusion...

...by the way still waiting for that reference to UCI regs vis-a-vis tri-bars prior to the 89 Tour....a quick look at those regs might answer a lot of questions....inquiring minds want to know!...

Cheers

blutto

Now that was an interesting explanation and possibly explains why Fignon may not have been too happy. Ok... no sour grapes.
thanks, Mac

 

[Race Radio]

huh..? what?

that's all you can say after i simply list the facts of the events.

i'm sorry. what or with whom are you arguing?

The guy is desperate to "Prove" that Lemond is a cheater. When he failed with the doping angle he was hoping the equipment angle would work....but that failed as well.

Sad

 

[blutto]

huh..? what?

that's all you can say after i simply list the facts of the events.

i'm sorry. what or with whom are you arguing?

....to begin...I find your use of the term arguing interesting...I had thought I was engaged in a discussion about the legality of tri-bars in the 89 Tour...maybe the use of the term has more to do with your motivations...and by the way arguments are down the hall...

...the point I was trying to make is that when one studies/writes history you come to understand that facts are notoriously slippery things...they are not, as someone once famously pointed out, like lumps of coal that remain lumps of coal no matter where they are transported or how long they remain in a pile...facts are the products of a context and are examined in a context and those contexts are not necessarily consistent....this is why the study of history is guided on a very basic level by the 4Ws...Who said What about Whom and Why...this framework helps interpret the facts i.e. puts them into a context that can then be used to assemble a history...

...so to simply throw some facts on the table so to speak and then draw conclusions from that process is simply to tell a story...that is not history...that is a comic book analysis that belongs in...uh...a comic book...

...for instance you say that Merckx was involved in the decision to allow the use of tri-bars in the 89 Tour...what exactly was his relationship to that decision...was he a representative of the UCI....was he part of ASO...was he just an innocent passerby who got dragged into a discussion...or was he part of a Moser type posse that Mr Webster talked about in an earlier post and whose purpose was to twisted regs to someone's advantage and if so to whose advantage and why...

...and what of the other commonality in this story...Lendant...why did he change the ruling at the Eddie Merckx Grand Prix...we know the regs were the same...what in the context of that event had changed...had the posse and the associated pressure disappeared?...Eddie was still there and from I've read he was furious at Lendant's decision to pull Fignon...it was a scandal at the time we are told and why was Eddie furious....was it because he was over-ruled and potentially made to look like an idiot for meddling in things he had no business meddling in?...was it because Fignon was wrongly disallowed to ride?...was it because his race was diminished because a star was not allowed to race?...

...the bottom line is the rule was in place for both races but it was, in the space of 6 weeks, applied in totally different ways....the question is why?...

....and you know, the Moser Hour record, which was in your terms just history ( and by implication irreducible/unchangeable), has been put into its particular context and a more equitable reading of the "facts" has produced a new history ( see Mr Webster post for details and view Boardman's record as an exclamation mark to this new history) ...the 89 Tour may just need a similar re-reading...and that I believe is part of the discussion here...

Cheer

blutto

 

[blutto]

Pretty sure Sean Yates won the GP Eddie Merckx in 1989.....and he used the bars.

...could you confirm this?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Big Doopie]

The guy is desperate to "Prove" that Lemond is a cheater. When he failed with the doping angle he was hoping the equipment angle would work....but that failed as well.

Sad

got it now. thanks.

 

[For The World]

....to begin...I find your use of the term arguing interesting...I had thought I was engaged in a discussion about the legality of tri-bars in the 89 Tour...maybe the use of the term has more to do with your motivations...and by the way arguments are down the hall...

...the point I was trying to make is that when one studies/writes history you come to understand that facts are notoriously slippery things...they are not, as someone once famously pointed out, like lumps of coal that remain lumps of coal no matter where they are transported or how long they remain in a pile...facts are the products of a context and are examined in a context and those contexts are not necessarily consistent....this is why the study of history is guided on a very basic level by the 4Ws...Who said What about Whom and Why...this framework helps interpret the facts i.e. puts them into a context that can then be used to assemble a history...

...so to simply throw some facts on the table so to speak and then draw conclusions from that process is simply to tell a story...that is not history...that is a comic book analysis that belongs in...uh...a comic book...

...for instance you say that Merckx was involved in the decision to allow the use of tri-bars in the 89 Tour...what exactly was his relationship to that decision...was he a representative of the UCI....was he part of ASO...was he just an innocent passerby who got dragged into a discussion...or was he part of a Moser type posse that Mr Webster talked about in an earlier post and whose purpose was to twisted regs to someone's advantage and if so to whose advantage and why...

...and what of the other commonality in this story...Lendant...why did he change the ruling at the Eddie Merckx Grand Prix...we know the regs were the same...what in the context of that event had changed...had the posse and the associated pressure disappeared?...Eddie was still there and from I've read he was furious at Lendant's decision to pull Fignon...it was a scandal at the time we are told and why was Eddie furious....was it because he was over-ruled and potentially made to look like an idiot for meddling in things he had no business meddling in?...was it because Fignon was wrongly disallowed to ride?...was it because his race was diminished because a star was not allowed to race?...

...the bottom line is the rule was in place for both races but it was, in the space of 6 weeks, applied in totally different ways....the question is why?...

....and you know, the Moser Hour record, which was in your terms just history ( and by implication irreducible/unchangeable), has been put into its particular context and a more equitable reading of the "facts" has produced a new history ( see Mr Webster post for details and view Boardman's record as an exclamation mark to this new history) ...the 89 Tour may just need a similar re-reading...and that I believe is part of the discussion here...

Cheer

blutto

Why do you begin and end every paragraph with periods?

Perhaps he (Big Doopie) mentioned arguing because when people disagree, they put forth their opposing argument. It doesn't have to be negative. Although, in this case, you come across as not actually having a point. You spout more questions than answers, and then expect people to find those answers for you - when it should be you looking. This brings me back to the first point - why do you being and end every paragraph with periods? Or an ill-formed ellipsis? It makes your posts even more disjointed.

Eddy Merckx couldn't have been part of ASO - they didn't start until 1992. It even says so on their website. Seeing as he is regarded as the best cyclist of all time, perhaps they valued his opinion on the matter?

I will reiterate what Big Doopie has asked - who are you talking to? Your points just trail off into thin air. There's no real sense or urgency - it's as if you're just thinking aloud. There's only two ways you can get the answers you seek - get Lemond and Fignon to tell you the truth, or watch all the cycling footage of time trials in 1989 and see for yourself. No book or third party will tell you exactly what you want to here, or the correct answer.

 

[Echoes]

FACT: The 3 point rule had come into effect after the amateur 100km Worlds in 1988 when the Italian squad won mightly with non-traditional bars

FACT: The 3 points rule means you can have but 3 leaning places on your bars, just like with any traditional bars. With tri bars added, you have 4.

FACT: Fignon was kept from starting the GP Merckx in STRICT application of that rule, when he came up with the same tri-bars as LeMond's (capital 'M').


So how can these throlls still deny Mr. LeMond cheated. I can give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to doping but certainly not with regards to the materials.

Not only was it illegal but it was also illegitimate. It's usually said that you can 2 seconds/km. A huge help. He did not have the same weapons as most of his opponents.

The question I'm still wondering is if really Sean Yates started the GP Merckx with the bars and if so why they let him start. But it won't change the fact that it was illegal. If he did use it in that race, he should have been disqualified too. Just like his team mates from the Tour de Trump. That's all.

I would love the UCI to ban it again. Oh and the TT helmets too, that primarily for a question of aesthetism. I find them awful.

 

[Echoes]

FACT: The 3 point rule had come into effect after the amateur 100km Worlds in 1988 when the Italian squad won mightly with non-traditional bars

FACT: The 3 points rule means you can have but 3 leaning places on your bike (saddle, pedals, bars). With tri bars added, you have a 4th one.

FACT: Fignon was kept from starting the GP Merckx in STRICT application of that rule, when he came up with the same tri-bars as LeMond's (capital 'M').


So how can these throlls still deny Mr. LeMond cheated. I can give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to doping but certainly not with regards to the materials.

Not only was it illegal but it was also illegitimate. It's usually said that you can 2 seconds/km. A huge help. He did not have the same weapons as most of his opponents.

The question I'm still wondering is if really Sean Yates started the GP Merckx with the bars and if so why they let him start. But it won't change the fact that it was illegal. If he did use it in that race, he should have been disqualified too. Just like his team mates from the Tour de Trump. That's all.

I would love the UCI to ban it again. Oh and the TT helmets too, that primarily for a question of aesthetism. I find them awful.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Whatever one feels about the sporting legitimicy of Lemonds descition to use the Tri bars in the final 89 TDF time trial he did NOT cheat.
Unless theres evidence that he deliberatly swayed descition with UCI technical stewards/ the chief commisare then the decision to allow them was there responsibility .
I`ve NEVER seen any evidence of such an impropriety on Gregs part.
A riders responsibility is to wring out every conceiavable advantage he can from his "weapons" ( the bike) and it`s for others to decide if there to be allowed.
Simples.

 

[For The World]

FACT: The 3 point rule had come into effect after the amateur 100km Worlds in 1988 when the Italian squad won mightly with non-traditional bars

FACT: The 3 points rule means you can have but 3 leaning places on your bike (saddle, pedals, bars). With tri bars added, you have a 4th one.

FACT: Fignon was kept from starting the GP Merckx in STRICT application of that rule, when he came up with the same tri-bars as LeMond's (capital 'M').


So how can these throlls still deny Mr. LeMond cheated. I can give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to doping but certainly not with regards to the materials.

Not only was it illegal but it was also illegitimate. It's usually said that you can 2 seconds/km. A huge help. He did not have the same weapons as most of his opponents.

The question I'm still wondering is if really Sean Yates started the GP Merckx with the bars and if so why they let him start. But it won't change the fact that it was illegal. If he did use it in that race, he should have been disqualified too. Just like his team mates from the Tour de Trump. That's all.

I would love the UCI to ban it again. Oh and the TT helmets too, that primarily for a question of aesthetism. I find them awful.

If it were illegal, do you REALLY think Lemond had THAT much sway with commissars so they would simply turn a blind eye? If it were illegal, how come no one else has ever said anything about him using tri bars. If they were so illegal, how come he used them again in 1990?

In the meantime, we'd better ban dual pivot brakes, because they give better stopping power and allow the rider to brake later into a corner, thus meaning they can go faster for a small amount longer. We'd better get rid of carbon fibre frames - we don't want those bikes weighing as little as possible.

I swear... this technology has NO place in this day and age...

 

[blutto]

Whatever one feels about the sporting legitimicy of Lemonds descition to use the Tri bars in the final 89 TDF time trial he did NOT cheat.
Unless theres evidence that he deliberatly swayed descition with UCI technical stewards/ the chief commisare then the decision to allow them was there responsibility .
I`ve NEVER seen any evidence of such an impropriety on Gregs part.
A riders responsibility is to wring out every conceiavable advantage he can from his "weapons" ( the bike) and it`s for others to decide if there to be allowed.
Simples.

....Mr Webster you are right about the cheating issue (assuming the story stays as it is now... so for instance, we don't find a Moser type posse throwing their weight around to produce an unfair advantage )...but this is not to say that a grave injustice may have been committed...

....and in a related story which you have already commented on....who would you consider to have cheated ( and why ) in the Moser Hour affair if indeed real cheating, and not just bending the rules, had occurred ....is it Moser...is it his handlers...is it the officials on the spot....or is it the UCI that ended up accepting the record....I ask because that story and the tri-bar are eerily similar ( note:not the same but similar)...and in a similar vein would love to hear your thoughts on the Nakano/Singleton affair.... I'm asking because I assume you were quite close to this affair as you were a cyclist from that era/region...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

FACT: The 3 point rule had come into effect after the amateur 100km Worlds in 1988 when the Italian squad won mightly with non-traditional bars

FACT: The 3 points rule means you can have but 3 leaning places on your bike (saddle, pedals, bars). With tri bars added, you have a 4th one.

FACT: Fignon was kept from starting the GP Merckx in STRICT application of that rule, when he came up with the same tri-bars as LeMond's (capital 'M').


So how can these throlls still deny Mr. LeMond cheated. I can give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to doping but certainly not with regards to the materials.

Not only was it illegal but it was also illegitimate. It's usually said that you can 2 seconds/km. A huge help. He did not have the same weapons as most of his opponents.

The question I'm still wondering is if really Sean Yates started the GP Merckx with the bars and if so why they let him start. But it won't change the fact that it was illegal. If he did use it in that race, he should have been disqualified too. Just like his team mates from the Tour de Trump. That's all.

I would love the UCI to ban it again. Oh and the TT helmets too, that primarily for a question of aesthetism. I find them awful.

You forgot this

FACT: The bars were ruled legal for the 1989 Tour de France. 7-11 and LeMond used them. Fignon had the opportunity and chose not to.

Public Strategies must be running out of talking points if all they can grasp for is the bars.

sad

 

[Darryl Webster]

....Mr Webster you are right about the cheating issue (assuming the story stays as it is now... so for instance, we don't find a Moser type posse throwing their weight around to produce an unfair advantage )...but this is not to say that a grave injustice may have been committed...

....and in a related story which you have already commented on....who would you consider to have cheated ( and why ) in the Moser Hour affair if indeed real cheating, and not just bending the rules, had occurred ....is it Moser...is it his handlers...is it the officials on the spot....or is it the UCI that ended up accepting the record....I ask because that story and the tri-bar are eerily similar ( note:not the same but similar)...and in a similar vein would love to hear your thoughts on the Nakano/Singleton affair.... I'm asking because I assume you were quite close to this affair as you were a cyclist from that era/region...

Cheers



blutto

I think and always have done that Gregs use of Tri Bars and Mosers bike WERE injusticies.
However, given that its the DUTY of a rider to stretch the regs as close to the wire as he can the ultimate responsibily lays with the Commisaires and Techinical judges for allowing the bars/ bike to be passed and in the case of Mosers Hour the UCI for ratifiyng the record (s).
Its easy to argue the case that the riders themselves might take more responsibilty for "fair" play but TBH since when has any elite leval sport been about fair play?
Thats why we have referees!
Mosers Hour, it should be rememberd was also assisted by blood doping..it realy should be taken out of the record books.
Re the Singlton/ Nakano " affair"...I was actualy track side for the 82 Worlds, if thats what your refering to?, and all I saw was two great riders collide.
Simples.

 

[blutto]

If it were illegal, do you REALLY think Lemond had THAT much sway with commissars so they would simply turn a blind eye? If it were illegal, how come no one else has ever said anything about him using tri bars. If they were so illegal, how come he used them again in 1990?

In the meantime, we'd better ban dual pivot brakes, because they give better stopping power and allow the rider to brake later into a corner, thus meaning they can go faster for a small amount longer. We'd better get rid of carbon fibre frames - we don't want those bikes weighing as little as possible.

I swear... this technology has NO place in this day and age...

....as I mentioned before this was a period in which the old UCI battle with all things aero/new tech was falling apart...and the UCI was flailing around throwing out bandage regs willy nilly in hopes of steming the aero/new tech tide...the rule in question here was one such reg...it was originally passed to deal the hip belts used in a TTT ( and in that narrow application it was a good rule because it addressed a potentially dangerous situation )...and it , according to another post in this thread been applied to another situation, that is, the Concor saddle with the built-in back-support ( while this application was a bit of a stretch it at least was within the spirit of the reg )...

...now what happened in the 89 Tour is at this point is anyone's guess...was it coercion, and driven by who knows what group is a good question, but I don't think that is really important at this point ( unless evidence surfaces that indicates other-wise...though the possibility of that occuring is still a possibility and not to dismissed out of hand )...the other possibilty is that it was either a bad interpretation made in the heat of the moment or it could be simply incompetance...either way that decision has to seen against the "proper" applications of that reg in decisions made before and after the 89 Tour....so the real question here is why a decision here that was overturned about 4 weeks later, and oddly enough by the same UCI official...

...and yes people did say something negative about this decision...in fact as noted in an earlier post in this thread it was considered a scandal...it was only in the Greg friendly media that the scandal didn't exist, in fact it was neatly swept under the carpet and replaced with the "official" story of the hero innovator battling against those backward neanderthal Europeans ( a story that is still played out today...as in Fignon was just too stupid/ arrogant to see the light )...

...and why were the tri-bars allowed in the 90 Tour..simple...they changed the regs...

...hope this moves the discussion forward....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Oldman]

....as I mentioned before this was a period in which the old UCI battle with all things aero/new tech was falling apart...



...and yes people did say something negative about this decision...in fact as noted in an earlier post in this thread it was considered a scandal...it was only in the Greg friendly media that the scandal didn't exist, in fact it was neatly swept under the carpet and replaced with the "official" story of the hero innovator battling against those backward neanderthal Europeans ( a story that is still played out today...as in Fignon was just too stupid/ arrogant to see the light )...

...and why were the tri-bars allowed in the 90 Tour..simple...they changed the regs...

...hope this moves the discussion forward....

Cheers

blutto

Lemond used them in the first, long TT of the '89 Tour. Fignon had tried the bars before and chose not to use them for that TT and, most importantly; the last TT. Lemond didn't simply whip them out of a black box minutes before that decisive ride. Whether it was unprecedented in your view it's clear the prior TT was the definitive stage when Fignon elected not to use them. His choice not to use them in the last stage was his strategic choice and he felt he had an advantage. He may have second-guessed his decision later but to make it a "scandal" and throw it on Lemond is weak. For any of us to label Lemond a "cheater" as a result of the race is weaker still.

 

[Anonymous]

Fignon took a gamble, no bars, no helmet, he wanted to do it old school. The gamble didnt pay off, he lost. He only had himself to blame.

That said, id love to see tt bikes and bars scrapped completely, along with TT helmets.

 

[luckylegs]

FACT: The 3 point rule had come into effect after the amateur 100km Worlds in 1988 when the Italian squad won mightly with non-traditional bars

FACT: The 3 points rule means you can have but 3 leaning places on your bike (saddle, pedals, bars). With tri bars added, you have a 4th one.

FACT: Fignon was kept from starting the GP Merckx in STRICT application of that rule, when he came up with the same tri-bars as LeMond's (capital 'M').


So how can these throlls still deny Mr. LeMond cheated. I can give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to doping but certainly not with regards to the materials.

Not only was it illegal but it was also illegitimate. It's usually said that you can 2 seconds/km. A huge help. He did not have the same weapons as most of his opponents.

The question I'm still wondering is if really Sean Yates started the GP Merckx with the bars and if so why they let him start. But it won't change the fact that it was illegal. If he did use it in that race, he should have been disqualified too. Just like his team mates from the Tour de Trump. That's all.

I would love the UCI to ban it again. Oh and the TT helmets too, that primarily for a question of aesthetism. I find them awful.

I believe the UCI ended up allowing aero bars only as one-piece and not clip-ons. Yates used Profile's first one-piece aero bar in the GP Merckx.