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

[Berzin]

Fignon was allowed to use the bars and decided not to.

He and his manager both agreed that there was no way humanly possible for Lemond to recoup the time needed to take the Tour, so Fignon wanted to prance up the Champs-Élysées with no aero bars and no helmet.

The decision was pure hubris and arrogance on his part. He lost fair and square.

As for what he said about the Colombians and their use of cocaine, just because it's an unpleasant story doesn't make it untrue.

 

[red_flanders]

...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...

...


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

It certainly moves the innuendo forward. You say he cheated, then have backed off that. You continue to suggest that coercion may have happened, but at the same time are backing off that...while still suggesting it...with no evidence...yet you keep saying it...but you admit it's unlikely...yet keep mentioning it...

Amazing the number of things folks allege about LeMond which have absolutely no evidence to support them.

And you (for some reason?) confine the discussion to a small period of time when the rules about the bars were (apparently, at least to you) unclear. Yet history shows clearly that the aero bars were in fact accepted by the rules and then very next year seen everywhere in the peloton. So what's the point? None.

Facts:

• Aero bars were allowed to ALL riders in the 1989 Tour
• Fignon had not practiced with the aero bars
• LeMond had
• Multiple riders were seen using them
• The 1989 Tour is the race in question, not other races in 1989
• Multiple riders used them in the previous long TT as well as the final short TT in Paris
• Fignon is on record as saying he decided not to use them, as well as obviously an aero helmet
• The use of aero bars was widespread the very next year and has been ever since
• Fignon lost


Conclusions:

• LeMond and other riders anticipated the trend, saw the advantage and adopted the new technology
• Fignon did not, and was stuck in a situation where he could not just switch positions/bikes and gain advantage
• LeMond in no way cheated

...and it was, in some versions of the reading of the 89 Tour history, this "illegality" that dissuaded Guimard/Fignon from using tri-bars...

This is the best bit in the whole thread. Fignon resisted the bars apparently out of some sense of fair play? Fear of later penalties? I mean, the suggestion is absolutely comical! Somehow he thought that even though other riders were using them, he knew it wasn't right and abstained? Freaking hilarious.

He simply didn't have the foresight to use them, and got smacked. LeMond had absolutely no business winning that race, Fignon took it in the mountains, and then congratulated LeMond on his great ride. LeMond was having none of it and took the race from a guy who thought (along with EVERYONE else) that it was over. Huge brass ones. All time great stuff. Slagging it 20 years later is absolutely a no-class attempt to slime LeMond when your other silly efforts failed.

 

[Derrick]

It could be worth remembering that at the time the U.C.I. were desperate to attract american money into the sport and a number of rules were waived in order to to make American participation easier. I know that a number of events were organized stateside as a shop window for the sport and a crowd of riders were enticed or perhaps cajoled to take part and guess what , very few ever got their money. {allegedly!} Well this is cycling ,what else did they expect?

 

[red_flanders]

It could be worth remembering that at the time the U.C.I. were desperate to attract american money into the sport and a number of rules were waived in order to to make American participation easier. I know that a number of events were organized stateside as a shop window for the sport and a crowd of riders were enticed or perhaps cajoled to take part and guess what , very few ever got their money. {allegedly!} Well this is cycling ,what else did they expect?

May I ask what you're suggesting?

Which rules were waived in order to make American participation easier?

Just looking for clarification, don't want to assume what you mean here.

 

[blutto]

May I ask what you're suggesting?

Which rules were waived in order to make American participation easier?

Just looking for clarification, don't want to assume what you mean here.

..like maybe waiving the 3 point rule so an American could win the 89 Tour...

...by the way thanks for the perfect leadout...

Cheers

blutto

 

[red_flanders]

..like maybe waiving the 3 point rule so an American could win the 89 Tour...

...by the way thanks for the perfect leadout...

Cheers

blutto

Pretty sure I wasn't asking you. But since you answered, are you suggesting that they waived the 3-point rule as a plot ot give advantage to Americans at the beginning of the race, before the first long TT? That they were so prescient as to see how this would eventually give LeMond the final victory, in a time when there was nothing to suggest he was in shape to win, and when anyone on any team could also take advantage of this "waived rule"? This all happening before the Pyrenees, before the Alps, or the final TT--before the race took any shape? They knew it would benefit "Americans"? Stunning stuff.

So not only could they foresee the advantage it would give LeMond in a time when most "experts" thought they bars were garbage, but they could foresee it would only give advantage to LeMond and that no one else in contention would use them?

So those same dirty French race officials who have been agonizing for a way to destroy Lance were actually conspiring to find a way to gift the victory to an American in 1989, even when they had no way of determining that this technology was either advantageous or being used by one rider and not another? Amazing stuff.

...by the way...do you have any evidence for your ridiculous theory? Maybe you can explain how the ruling on tri-bars made (as the post above says) American participation easier? Maybe you could clarify how it would have been difficult for Americans to participate without aero bars? Really confusing...

Still curious if Derrick had some other worthwhile point to make. I've heard the blotto theories quite enough...

 

[Dedelou]

Are we discussing here "what happened at Tour 89" or what Fignon Wrote in his book?
If the Discussion is about the Tour Results than of course by no mean we should be "responsible" enough to allow every variables that bring some intelligence to the discussion. Including, of course, consideration of the role of politics and commercial interest in many elements that constitute "official rulings"
IF this is about what Fignon wrote in his biography and what was his motivation in writing his opinion. Well it is mine that people write books just for the purpose of expressing their views and share how they see the events that affected their own life. One has to learn to read books with an open mind. As always many people read, not to learn something new or make discoveries, but all too often to simply reinforce their own worldview

 

[Dedelou]

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.

Assuming you have done all what you suggest in your post did you come to some conclusion that would be interesting to note and can we hear it?

 

[For The World]

Most certainly.

If you take it based purely on race video, along with disregarding the commentary, you see that Lemond used tri bars, and Fignon didn't. Commissars did not appear to approach Lemond even in the start house - essentially the point of no return to get him to remove the bars. Therefore, we can deduce from that, that he was in fact allowed to use the bars, and there was no impropriety.

As Lemond finished, he was waiting to see what Fignons time was. When he heard that he had beaten Fignon and won the Tour by 8 seconds, he appeared happy. No one stopped Lemond from claiming the stage or the overall victory. That's what the video shows.

I haven't spoken to Lemond, and will be unable to with Fignon. So, that's the facts (represented in readily available video format) that i can gather.

 

[red_flanders]

Most certainly.

If you take it based purely on race video, along with disregarding the commentary, you see that Lemond used tri bars, and Fignon didn't. Commissars did not appear to approach Lemond even in the start house - essentially the point of no return to get him to remove the bars. Therefore, we can deduce from that, that he was in fact allowed to use the bars, and there was no impropriety.

As Lemond finished, he was waiting to see what Fignons time was. When he heard that he had beaten Fignon and won the Tour by 8 seconds, he appeared happy. No one stopped Lemond from claiming the stage or the overall victory. That's what the video shows.

I haven't spoken to Lemond, and will be unable to with Fignon. So, that's the facts (represented in readily available video format) that i can gather.

Note that Lemond used the bars in stage 5, some two weeks earlier, as did some other folks. I can't remember if he did in the stage 3 TTT or not, but there certainly was plenty of time for objection before and after the various stages where the bars were used.

Here's the money quote from Fignon on the eve of the final, fateful stage:

Greg believes he can win, but it is impossible. I am too strong in the mind and the legs. Fifty seconds is too much to make up in such a short distance.

Presumably he'd seen the aero bars on stage 5. Doesn't sound like a guy who's worried about all this "controversy" about the bars, does it folks? Anyone?

And curiously:

Fignon, on the other hand, asked Guimard to keep him informed of LeMond's progress. After trying his own version of the tri-bars in a practice ride that morning, Fignon had gone back to the cowhorn-style handlebars that are preferred by most European racers. Inexplicably, Fignon chose to discard the racing helmet he had used during earlier time trials and went hatless, letting his ponytail flap in the breeze — a triumph of vanity over aerodynamics.

Odd. Seems in fact that he simply chose not to use them, and in fact, did practice with the tri-bars after getting trounced in the first long flat ITT. Are we to surmise he dismissed the bars because of his ethics about the rules?

Note aslo that in fact LeMond had NOT practiced (contrary to my earlier assertions) with the bars and busted them out for the first time in stage 5.

Seems to me LeMond, a guy with nothing to lose after his disastrous results the previous two years, was the guy who was willing to pull out all the stops, take risks, and go for broke. Seems to have paid off.

All this aside, it was by far the best Tour ever IMO.

 

[Oldman]

Most certainly.

If you take it based purely on race video, along with disregarding the commentary, you see that Lemond used tri bars, and Fignon didn't. Commissars did not appear to approach Lemond even in the start house - essentially the point of no return to get him to remove the bars. Therefore, we can deduce from that, that he was in fact allowed to use the bars, and there was no impropriety.
As Lemond finished, he was waiting to see what Fignons time was. When he heard that he had beaten Fignon and won the Tour by 8 seconds, he appeared happy. No one stopped Lemond from claiming the stage or the overall victory. That's what the video shows.

I haven't spoken to Lemond, and will be unable to with Fignon. So, that's the facts (represented in readily available video format) that i can gather.

You can deduce? What a sleuthful bit of reasoning, that. They can disqualify you at any time and had a chance to see the bars long before his TT began. He'd been shilling those bars and several other dubious aero products for awhile (think of those crappy Scott "drop-in" bars among others).
Lemond was paid to use the stuff and everyone knew it back then. Because you don't have a commentary loop on whatever video you're watching means you can deduce...what? What did you say...nothing? Jeez.

 

[For The World]

You can deduce? What a sleuthful bit of reasoning, that. They can disqualify you at any time and had a chance to see the bars long before his TT began. He'd been shilling those bars and several other dubious aero products for awhile (think of those crappy Scott "drop-in" bars among others).
Lemond was paid to use the stuff and everyone knew it back then. Because you don't have a commentary loop on whatever video you're watching means you can deduce...what? What did you say...nothing? Jeez.

I've simply said what is shown in video footage (plus, it's easy to ignore the commentary). Some people are spouting opinions left and right, and ignoring what was shown on the day. You even seem to be agreeing with me in that he could have been disqualified at any time, but he wasn't. So what of it that he was paid to use certain items? That seems to be the inherent nature of sponsorship - they pay you to use their products.

My previous post shows what i've found - that he was not using the bars illegaly, because, as you say, they could have disqualified him at anytime. This then leads us to believe that Fignon is incorrect in his assertion of any issue with the legality of the usage of tri bars. What was so hard to understand?

Also - the Scott Drop-In bars weren't fitted to the road bikes until 1990 when Greg transferred to Team Z.

 

[Oldman]

I've simply said what is shown in video footage (plus, it's easy to ignore the commentary). Some people are spouting opinions left and right, and ignoring what was shown on the day. You even seem to be agreeing with me in that he could have been disqualified at any time, but he wasn't. So what of it that he was paid to use certain items? That seems to be the inherent nature of sponsorship - they pay you to use their products.

My previous post shows what i've found - that he was not using the bars illegaly, because, as you say, they could have disqualified him at anytime. This then leads us to believe that Fignon is incorrect in his assertion of any issue with the legality of the usage of tri bars. What was so hard to understand?

Also - the Scott Drop-In bars weren't fitted to the road bikes until 1990 when Greg transferred to Team Z.

My point is the video doesn't provide any reliable background to the UCI's approval/disapproval any more than Fignon's latent opinion.
As for various Scott products-Lemond tried them out before '90. He wasn't paid to use them until then because his stature made it profitable. He was one of the first Oakley riders as well. Euro's ridiculed many of the innovations Lemond was willing to experiment with. Anyone remember the Scott bars with the "strut" reinforcements to the fork? They were hilarious. Fignon and others clearly discounted anything Boone Scott and Lemond did until he beat them with the product.

 

[Archibald]

If you take it based purely on race video, along with disregarding the commentary, you see that Lemond used tri bars, and Fignon didn't. Commissars did not appear to approach Lemond even in the start house - essentially the point of no return to get him to remove the bars. Therefore, we can deduce from that, that he was in fact allowed to use the bars, and there was no impropriety.

or perhaps in their (french) arrogance, they felt that he would not win so did not bother with it? when he eventually won it was too late, "the horse had bolted"...

 

[For The World]

or perhaps in their (french) arrogance, they felt that he would not win so did not bother with it? when he eventually won it was too late, "the horse had bolted"...

Anything is possible, even that.

 

[Echoes]

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.

Thank you for making the discussion really move forward with a very interesting post. I'm sometimes wondering why the LeMondtards seem to have blinkers on the Tour de France, just as the French who always believe their national Tour was all that matters. The key event of this whole story was the GP Merckx and it was perhaps the 3rd most important single day ITT at that time.

My youth idol was Edwig van Hooydonck and I was inclined to think that this was just another race in which he was screwed over (he was 2nd at the GP Merckx and defending champion) but OK I take it from your post that Yates made nothing illegal but they did not fight with the same weapons (I take it Edwig did not have the bars).

So the way I understand your post is that the 1st model of tri-bars was banned until GP Merckx included and that Yates' one-piece model had never been used before GP Merckx. So he's an innovator. Am I right?

Then I've got other questions. Why did the UCI allow this model with regards to the 3-point rule? Is it possible that with such a model you actually still have 3 leaning points (don't know if it's the correct term in the English language for "point d'appui")?

Mosers Hour, it should be rememberd was also assisted by blood doping..it realy should be taken out of the record books.

Is this a known fact? I know there have been a lot of suspicion around his performance from the doping angle but I've never been sure it was true. If it's true, then his whole "1984 Renaissance" with the win in Milan Sanremo and the Giro is a pretty big joke.

--------

By the way Blutto, could you give your source concerning the Italian 100 TT Team from 1987 (it was 1987 and not 1988, my mistake !). I don't doubt the rule has existed after that but it would be clearer with a source.

 

[blutto]

Thank you for making the discussion really move forward with a very interesting post. I'm sometimes wondering why the LeMondtards seem to have blinkers on the Tour de France, just as the French who always believe their national Tour was all that matters. The key event of this whole story was the GP Merckx and it was perhaps the 3rd most important single day ITT at that time.

My youth idol was Edwig van Hooydonck and I was inclined to think that this was just another race in which he was screwed over (he was 2nd at the GP Merckx and defending champion) but OK I take it from your post that Yates made nothing illegal but they did not fight with the same weapons (I take it Edwig did not have the bars).

So the way I understand your post is that the 1st model of tri-bars was banned until GP Merckx included and that Yates' one-piece model had never been used before GP Merckx. So he's an innovator. Am I right?

Then I've got other questions. Why did the UCI allow this model with regards to the 3-point rule? Is it possible that with such a model you actually still have 3 leaning points (don't know if it's the correct term in the English language for "point d'appui")?



Is this a known fact? I know there have been a lot of suspicion around his performance from the doping angle but I've never been sure it was true. If it's true, then his whole "1984 Renaissance" with the win in Milan Sanremo and the Giro is a pretty big joke.

--------

By the way Blutto, could you give your source concerning the Italian 100 TT Team from 1987 (it was 1987 and not 1988, my mistake !). I don't doubt the rule has existed after that but it would be clearer with a source.

...very sorry but I have nothing that would lead directly to that specific UCI reg...there is the article that you had referred to earlier in this thread that mentions the Merckx GP incident and that reg...and this news was also reprised in a La Figaro article but nothing new is added though my French is terrible and it may be worth looking at if your understanding of French is good.there may be a nuance I missed..

...the information I'm working from is from an article I read at the time of the original controversy...it was quite detailed and came with a diagram and some photos which defined a very pretty clear picture of the issues involved and the resultant reg...still,working from memory I'm afraid...

...again, sorry...gotta run...work calls...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Darryl Webster]

Hi Echoes..re Moser and blood doping. As far as I`m aware he has admited to blood doping for the hour. I dont think It wasnt detectable or banned at the time. Doesnt make it "Ok" though in my book.
Dont have any links to that admission , perhaps others can clarify?

 

[blutto]

He Echoes..re Moser and blood doping. As far as I`m aware he has admited to blood doping for the hour. I dont think It wasnt detectable or banned at the time. Doesnt make it "Ok" though in my book.
Dont have any links to that admission , perhaps others can clarify?

...the only thing I could add is that in the 84 LA Games members of the American cycling team admitted to blood doping...and while details were hard to pin down because of the spin storm that ensued the feeling I got from the incident was that blood doping while not condoned or approved was also not explicitly forbidden...that being said Eddie B the US coach did get a penalty but at the time it seemed it was for being caught and being stupid rather then a specified infraction..

...so it could well be that Moser just took advantage of what was available rule wise and really broke no rules but certainly ****ed all over the spirit of fair competition...

...that being said the bike was certainly over the top and contributed mightily to what is in my mind was a clear injustice...some could almost call it mechanical doping...

...as I said before those were weird times in regards the UCI regs and their application...

Cheers

blutto

 

[red_flanders]

or perhaps in their (french) arrogance, they felt that he would not win so did not bother with it? when he eventually won it was too late, "the horse had bolted"...

They may have indeed felt it wasn't worth bothering about, but they would have felt this way on Stage 5, when LeMond (and others) first used the bars. At that point, the race hadn't hit either mountain chain and it was wide open. The decision to allow the bars was NOT made on the final stage.

You also can't look at this with the hindsight knowing the difference the bars made--you have to look at the decision to allow them in the context of the day, when most experts didn't think they would help and many thought they would be a detriment to "breathing". So the decision to allow them was made in a context of not even knowing if they gave advantage. It didn't have to do with them thinking it would alter the race results, that's all hindsight.

It was reported if you'll read the previous posts, that Fignon tried the bars and decided against them. So this was not a "LeMond only" decision. Anyone could have used them and others did.

 

[blutto]

They may have indeed felt it wasn't worth bothering about, but they would have felt this way on Stage 5, when LeMond (and others) first used the bars. At that point, the race hadn't hit either mountain chain and it was wide open. The decision to allow the bars was NOT made on the final stage.

You also can't look at this with the hindsight knowing the difference the bars made--you have to look at the decision to allow them in the context of the day, when most experts didn't think they would help and many thought they would be a detriment to "breathing". So the decision to allow them was made in a context of not even knowing if they gave advantage. It didn't have to do with them thinking it would alter the race results, that's all hindsight.

It was reported if you'll read the previous posts, that Fignon tried the bars and decided against them. So this was not a "LeMond only" decision. Anyone could have used them and others did.

...very interesting post...but I think a few comments about the "context of the day" may be helpful...

...Boone Lennon patented the tri-bar concept in 87 and by 89 he had gained very good penetration in the leading edge of the tri market...find below an example of their effect...

"The concept of a tri specific bicycle was pioneered by Ralph Ray and Dan Empfield in the late 80s. In 1989 Empfield designed the Quintana Roo Superform, a triathlon specific bicycle "built from the aerobars back" which provided an aerodynamic advantage as well as more power when in the "aero" position. Empfield's bike had 650c wheels and an 80 degree seat angle which was unique to the period. Many professional triathletes were skeptical of the "steep" design at first but when Ray Browning rode it at Ironman New Zealand shattering the bike and overall course records and left the bike leg with a 30 minute lead over rival Scott Tinley, the concepts were here to stay..."

....this race occured in early 89 and its results ( let me repeat that...the advantage was 30 mins ) were not lost on the tri community which by the way was now showing up at local TT's in greater and greater numbers...

...so here is the scenario in 88 and especially 89...riders governed by UCI aero rules being routinely trashed by "pretty boys in bikini bottoms"( that is what we called the tri crowd in those days) who could bring all the go-fast stuff money could buy to the TT's...to make make a long story short we were getting our asses kicked, but rules were rules, and you couldn't go full aero because, at the very least, it really didn't apply to road racing anyway....

....this aero rules issue was not an abstract concept as you portay it because just about anyone who rode in that period had run into concrete examples of the unfairness of competition between rders constained by rules and those not...so to say LeMond used the bars as some sort of "hail mary toss" is disengenius at least and a gross distortion of the truth at worst...LeMond had Boone Lennon at the Tour with him and if anyone knew that the bars would give someone a 3.5 min headstart it was Boone...and what rider would turn down such an advantage at any point in a stage race...

...so to conclude...in 89, most riders in areas where tri's were big, had run into not only the speed potential that aero improvements produced but also the rules that prevented us from using the available aero aids....what we saw on the screen on that Sunday was a version of what we had been experiencing all summer...some guy who couldn't hang with the Cat 3's, but who could, by using enough go-fast stuff that we couldn't use, kick our butts...

...and that sir, is the "context of the day"...so the question still remains...how could a reg that didn't change "on the books" be interpreted so differently in the space of 6 weeks by the same official...and a reg that had been regularly applied (or not, depending on who knows what... ) for the better part of two cycling seasons...and yes LeMond took full advantage of a ruling made during the 89 Tour and Fignon did not but that still doesn't make the regs that were applied after the Tour disappear or not be the final arbitur of what was legal or not...though I have to admit the Yates issue really complicates making sense of this...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Derrick]

Interesting that Moser's '84 Milan- San Remo win has been mentioned. I was under the impression that it had already been discounted. At the time Roger de Vlaeminck, who was evidently owed £18,000 by Moser at the time, threatened to tell the world how Moser had " won" rather implying that the victory had been bought. He never did tell so we must assume that he got his money. Moser was evidentally a bad payer and I know that the British rider David Akam, who rode for Moser at the time, was not paid for 6 months.

 

[red_flanders]

....this aero rules issue was not an abstract concept as you portay it because just about anyone who rode in that period had run into concrete examples of the unfairness of competition between rders constained by rules and those not...so to say LeMond used the bars as some sort of "hail mary toss" is disengenius at least and a gross distortion of the truth at worst...LeMond had Boone Lennon at the Tour with him and if anyone knew that the bars would give someone a 3.5 min headstart it was Boone...and what rider would turn down such an advantage at any point in a stage race...

...so to conclude...in 89, most riders in areas where tri's were big, had run into not only the speed potential that aero improvements produced but also the rules that prevented us from using the available aero aids....what we saw on the screen on that Sunday was a version of what we had been experiencing all summer...some guy who couldn't hang with the Cat 3's, but who could, by using enough go-fast stuff that we couldn't use, kick our butts...

...and that sir, is the "context of the day"...so the question still remains...how could a reg that didn't change "on the books" be interpreted so differently in the space of 6 weeks by the same official...and a reg that had been regularly applied (or not, depending on who knows what... ) for the better part of two cycling seasons...and yes LeMond took full advantage of a ruling made during the 89 Tour and Fignon did not but that still doesn't make the regs that were applied after the Tour disappear or not be the final arbitur of what was legal or not...though I have to admit the Yates issue really complicates making sense of this...

The differences in speed you portray here did not play out in the Tour. There is no comparison to some guy who "couldn't hang with cat 3's" kicking your **** (I don't know what cat you were or are) and LeMond winning a 73 stage 5 TT by a minute or less. LeMond was a top time trialist by any measure, even on somewhat off form, which you can't really make much of a case for given his excellent if not winning performance in the mountains.

I don't understand what you mean by "abstract" regarding the bars or why you put "hail mary toss" in quotes as if I'd said it. Very strange, since I didn't. Who are you quoting? i

Clearly LeMond came to the Tour with the intent to use the bars. Clearly he could have ridden the same bike (it had longhorn bars) without them. Did he know the Tour would accept the bars beforehand? I don't know. Do you? He claims to have taken one practice ride with them, the day before the first TT. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? So what if you did? It would simply mean he got clarification on the ruling before he used them. Seems...smart.

The simple fact is, again, this technology was available to ANYONE in the race. The fact is that the race allowed the technology, UCI rules interpretation notwithstanding. The fact is that LeMond brought the bars to the race, as did others, and was allowed to ride. This approach was available to ANYONE but LeMond clearly took advantage of the innovation and used it to win.

Fair on a pure mano-a-mano "who is the strongest rider" level? Probably not. Fair in the "who did the best prep for the Tour and took full advantage of all aspects of the sport". Absolutely. Legal in the race? Obviously.

To the topic, Fignon's comments are (IMO) irrelevant. A distinction without a difference. You can get wound up in a looooong diatribe about how this likely wasn't legal as per UCI rules, that somehow this is all tied to one official (why is this relevant?), try and revisit or re-invent history, and make a waffling case that LeMond was somehow in the wrong. But what is the point? Fignon says the bars were illegal. Clearly they were allowed by the race and clearly he tried them and chose not to use them. So they weren't illegal in the race and he chose not to use them. In the last TT he is on record as saying it was over and LeMond couldn't win. His comments are simply not relevant to the events as they played out.

He got beat. No one cheated. End of story.

 

[Archibald]

He got beat. No one cheated. End of story.

you mean the bars used weren't cheating...

 

[Darryl Webster]

Interesting that Moser's '84 Milan- San Remo win has been mentioned. I was under the impression that it had already been discounted. At the time Roger de Vlaeminck, who was evidently owed £18,000 by Moser at the time, threatened to tell the world how Moser had " won" rather implying that the victory had been bought. He never did tell so we must assume that he got his money. Moser was evidentally a bad payer and I know that the British rider David Akam, who rode for Moser at the time, was not paid for 6 months.

I once had the pleasure of winding Moser up in Leicester track centre.
As he came of the steps into the track centre I thought it would be interesting to see his reaction to a cheery wave and called out "Hi Frank"..
...His scowl spoke volumes!
Me finks Frank likes to be treeted with the reverance of a Pope...highly approprietly I guess...cus there lieing scumbags with the morality of the Mafia to.