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

[Oldman]

...run for hills everyone...

...Greg's Familiars are flailing about trying to keep their dream alive and untarnished...

...their backs are against the wall and one can smell the desperation ( oooh!!!... really off the scale stinky...don't these people bathe regularly?...oh right, forgot, no time, protecting the dream is a 25hr/day job...run away!!!!...)...

...too bad so sad...it was a great dream while it lasted...now the Familiars are simply empty husks of their former selves...

Cheers

blutto

...this ranks as the rankest bout of idiocy on these forums. You win the prize. Tell Lance hello.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...first of all..its so cool that you are giving me one more chance...you are kind beyond words...

...as the exact rule ...sorry I can't provide that...all I have is a memory of an article, memories of references to the TDF issue and references that Echoes has furnished...

...but to put the shoe on the other foot, what rule was broken by Hampsten at the Giro and Fignon at the EMPG....
same setup as LeMond's different result....so we have three "facts on the ground"...two go one way ...one goes the other...or put it another way disprove my assertion that in those rule applications something was wrong because they cannot all be right or all wrong ...so which is it...the two or the one..and why...

Cheers

blutto

Amm, would this be the same memory you used to say Greg had his spleen removed - when in fact he did not?


This is the rule that Hampsten, Fignon and whoever else you want to throw at it appear to break:

Cheers

UCI

 

[Echoes]

I'm a bit confused here. I thought people were only interested in historical truth without gloryhunting or fanboyism. I was wrong.

Why am I discussing past facts? Cycling history has always fascinated me. It's my own right, isn't it? Some people still talk about Ancient Egypt.

And didn't Howard Zinn say something like "if you don't know your history, it's as if you were born yesterday and if you were born yesterday, anyone can tell you anything."


In any case here are some important paragraphs from the articles that I gave you in French.

It's an interview of Mr. Claude Jacquat, UCI official on the Tour de France 1989, by Philippe Brunel from L'Équipe, after the GP Merckx:

Brunel: L’argumentation de Nicolas Ledent repose sur un autre point du règlement qui stipulerait qu’une bicyclette ne peut ménager plus de 3 points d’appui. Or les poignées rajoutées par Lemond [sic] et Fignon offrent de l’assise aux avant-bras, ce qui n’est pas le cas des guidons moulés.

Jacquat: L’article 49, qui fut très souvent modifié précise, je cite : « que les machines en tout genre fonctionnant par la seule force de l’homme avec trois points en position fixe (selle, guidon et pédalier) sont admises pour la compétition ». À vous de m’expliquer ce qu’il faut en déduire car vous lisez sans nul doute le français mieux que moi. Moi, j’en tire la conclusion qu’on ne peut déplacer ni la selle, ni le pédalier, ni le guidon mais tout le monde peut avoir sa propre interprétation.

Brunel: Nicolas Ledent’s argumentation is based on another* article of the ruling which seems to say that a bike cannot provide more than 3 resting points. Now, the clip-ons added by LeMond and Fignon offer rest for the forearms, which is not the case for the one-piece bars.

Jacquat: The article 49, which has very often been modified, specifies that “the bikes working by the only force of man with three point in a fixed position (saddle, bars and pedals) are admitted for competition.”** It’s yours to explain to me what you should derived from it because you probably read French better than I do. I draw the conclusions that you can neither move the saddle nor the pedals, nor the bars but everybody can have its own interpretation.

*They were just talking about the one-piece bars above, but it's not interesting.
**The rule is also highlighted in the box above on the article.

May I say that his interpretation was not convincing at all. He only cared about the fact that the points had to be fixed. Whether there were three or four of them did not matter to him, while the text clearly says there could only be three of them. However Ledent's interpretation justifies. It's just what I have said on this thread. If you can rest your forearms and your hands on the bars, they give 2 points (+ saddle + pedals to make it 4). And now you understand why he gave Yates a green light.

Brunel also adds this:

Eddy Merckx was surprised that a technical innovation can be admitted in the middle of the season. According to him, every innovation should be a matter for the UCI technical commission and then sanctioned at the end of the year.

Stands to reason, doesn't it. OK, Jacquat argued that the US team were using them at the Seoul Olympics. But yet it did not seem to have been sanctioned.

About the Italian victory in the 1987 100km TTT Worlds.
Article from L'Équipe made by the famous French journalist Pierre Chany:

When victory hangs on a rope

The Italians raced with a ingenious system made out of a wide belt integrated in the suit and linked with the bars by a small rope, equipped with a crab. They thus gave themselves a 4th resting point, a bit like Thierry Marie in the prologue of the Tour de France 1986, while the ruling is very strict: only 3 points: saddle, bars, pedals.

In order to give the Romanian UCI official the slip, in charge of the equipment checking, the 4 Italians came to the starting line at the very last moment. The small rope hardly came out of their suit. Then right after the start, the 4 “Azzuri’s” quickly draw the rope and hang the crab to the bars. After finish, their disqualification was discussed but the UCI preferred giving themselves time to think about it before taking a decision, which will make some people unhappy, whatever it will be.

It is already been announced that the clip-on will be banned next year but we can see that, once again, the UCI officials were beaten to it.

 

[ultimobici]

I'm a bit confused here. I thought people were only interested in historical truth without gloryhunting or fanboyism. I was wrong.

Why am I discussing past facts? Cycling history has always fascinated me. It's my own right, isn't it? Some people still talk about Ancient Egypt.

I don't think that it helps that the Armstrong case is ongoing at the moment, not to mention the obvious link with Lemond.

Discussing the history of the sport is good and interesting, but there is always an element of opinion & interpretation included. Unless the protagonists are on posting this thread we can only speculate on why they acted the way that they did.
Fignon's comments in his book's first chapter prompted the thread in the first place. Problem is that, in my opinion, several posters either misread it or hadn't read it at all.
You posted about Hampsten in the Giro and I told you that you were wrong. It turned out that I was wrong! I was unaware of the article in the French press. Having said that, I reckon 7-11 asked in advance if they could use the bars rather than rolling up to the start hence the lack of drama over it at the actual race.
Anyhow, having read Fignon's book, I have to agree with him that it was the golden age of modern cycling. Don't get me wrong, I still love cycling, but Hinault through to the very very early 90's was the heyday for me.

 

[blutto]

Amm, would this be the same memory you used to say Greg had his spleen removed - when in fact he did not?


This is the rule that Hampsten, Fignon and whoever else you want to throw at it appear to break:


Cheers

UCI

...took my memory into the shop this morning and cross-checked it across the memories of several others who were part of our training group way back when ( and this group by the way included two doctors and 4 medical students )...their recollections confirm my recollections...we all agreed as to the existance of the reference..so while it is perfectly possible the reference was wrong it did at one point exist in print...

....and this is one of the problems of dealing with this era...information was at the best of times sketchy and not in a format that could withstand the ravages of time...unless of course you are a pack-rat who hoarded every magazine you ever bought...

...as an example...a few months ago I went looking for an 1974 NYC phone book...there were millions made and used right...but try to find one today...not that easy...its the same with our cycling cultures history...its fading into the mists of time as those magazine stashes disappear...and all we are left with are memories...

...and oh by the way the reg seems to be Article 49...I'll leave it to you to find the exact wording...those 80's UCI rule books shouldn't be too hard to find for someone as resourceful as yourself...and once you find it you can prove us wrong...good luck...and be sure to get one in the original latin as they are the only ones that are really official...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

...this ranks as the rankest bout of idiocy on these forums. You win the prize. Tell Lance hello.

...so very sorry you didn't appreciate my admittedly juvenile attempt at juvenile finger in the eye booger powered humour...I guess there is simply no explaining bad taste...

...but hey, the good thing is that I won a prize...like how cool is that, to be recognized as someone really special by one's
own peers.....and you know how much I look up to youse guys...this means a lot...

...so lets get down to brass tacks...where's the loot that comes with the prize?...and is there like a trophy?...

...waiting with bated breath for the goodies....

...again, thanks a whole pile...now I really feel like I'm one of the guys, like an inner sanctum kinda thing...you really made my day...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

I'm a bit confused here. I thought people were only interested in historical truth without gloryhunting or fanboyism. I was wrong.

Why am I discussing past facts? Cycling history has always fascinated me. It's my own right, isn't it? Some people still talk about Ancient Egypt.

And didn't Howard Zinn say something like "if you don't know your history, it's as if you were born yesterday and if you were born yesterday, anyone can tell you anything."


In any case here are some important paragraphs from the articles that I gave you in French.

It's an interview of Mr. Claude Jacquat, UCI official on the Tour de France 1989, by Philippe Brunel from L'Équipe, after the GP Merckx:





*They were just talking about the one-piece bars above, but it's not interesting.
**The rule is also highlighted in the box above on the article.

May I say that his interpretation was not convincing at all. He only cared about the fact that the points had to be fixed. Whether there were three or four of them did not matter to him, while the text clearly says there could only be three of them. However Ledent's interpretation justifies. It's just what I have said on this thread. If you can rest your forearms and your hands on the bars, they give 2 points (+ saddle + pedals to make it 4). And now you understand why he gave Yates a green light.

Brunel also adds this:



Stands to reason, doesn't it. OK, Jacquat argued that the US team were using them at the Seoul Olympics. But yet it did not seem to have been sanctioned.

About the Italian victory in the 1987 100km TTT Worlds.
Article from L'Équipe made by the famous French journalist Pierre Chany:

...thanks for the info...really appreciated...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm a bit confused here. I thought people were only interested in historical truth without gloryhunting or fanboyism. I was wrong.

Why am I discussing past facts? Cycling history has always fascinated me. It's my own right, isn't it? Some people still talk about Ancient Egypt.
<snipped for brevity>

I enjoy your posts - as they are well informed - and I agree, cyclings history is fascinating and deserves more threads.

But, as I am sure you are aware - there is one poster here who is not interested in history, but in rewriting history to suit their bitterness and bias.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...took my memory into the shop this morning and cross-checked it across the memories of several others who were part of our training group way back when ( and this group by the way included two doctors and 4 medical students )...their recollections confirm my recollections...we all agreed as to the existance of the reference..so while it is perfectly possible the reference was wrong it did at one point exist in print...

....and this is one of the problems of dealing with this era...information was at the best of times sketchy and not in a format that could withstand the ravages of time...unless of course you are a pack-rat who hoarded every magazine you ever bought...

...as an example...a few months ago I went looking for an 1974 NYC phone book...there were millions made and used right...but try to find one today...not that easy...its the same with our cycling cultures history...its fading into the mists of time as those magazine stashes disappear...and all we are left with are memories...

...and oh by the way the reg seems to be Article 49...I'll leave it to you to find the exact wording...those 80's UCI rule books shouldn't be too hard to find for someone as resourceful as yourself...and once you find it you can prove us wrong...good luck...and be sure to get one in the original latin as they are the only ones that are really official...

Cheers

blutto

So - I asked you to cite the particular rule or regulation - and you went back to your old training buddies for confirmation of your memory?
These are the same people who said Gregs spleen was removed?
And 4 of your old training buddies are still Medical Students???

If I was you, I would request a second opinion.


BTW - here is how to get a details of the 1974 New York Phone Book.

Again - cite me the rule that you believe was broken and I will happily review it.

 

[blutto]

So - I asked you to cite the particular rule or regulation - and you went back to your old training buddies for confirmation of your memory?
These are the same people who said Gregs spleen was removed?
And 4 of your old training buddies are still Medical Students???

If I was you, I would request a second opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...if you had actually bothered to look at what I had written you may have noticed the word, "included",and the phrase "way back when" which implies past tense...and these 4 gentlemen have been very successful doctors for several decades so your cheap put-down is way off base......

...and to reiterate their conection to that spleen reference...we had all seen it and discussed among ourselves the ramifications of the loss of a spleen to Mr. LeMond's career...they did not tell me LeMond's spleen was removed... an article we had all read said so though I'm perfectly willing now to say that that article was wrong and we were commenting on a false premise....again if you had actually read my earlier posts you may have cottoned on to that...

....as for the telephone book...I was actually looking for the book...not a number in the book but the book itself...again we find you either not bothering to read or not understanding what I had written...

...as for the reg...Echoes gave you the clue ( though you probably didn't read/understand that either ) go find it yourself if its that important to you...and you can review it at your pleasure and then show us the error of our ways and prove us wrong....then we'll all be happy as the mystery will be solved...

...and please, before you go shooting your mouth off again, at least try to comprehend what you are commenting on, otherwise you end up looking rather foolish...and we wouldn't want to see that because we really care about you...really we do...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Oldman]

Checked in again after a rest. Lemond still won legally. Fignon wasn't happy. Nothing changed.

 

[blutto]

Checked in again after a rest. Lemond still won legally. Fignon wasn't happy. Nothing changed.

...legally?...therein lies the rub...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...if you had actually bothered to look at what I had written you may have noticed the word, "included",and the phrase "way back when" which implies past tense...and these 4 gentlemen have been very successful doctors for several decades so your cheap put-down is way off base......

...and to reiterate their conection to that spleen reference...we had all seen it and discussed among ourselves the ramifications of the loss of a spleen to Mr. LeMond's career...they did not tell me LeMond's spleen was removed... an article we had all read said so though I'm perfectly willing now to say that that article was wrong and we were commenting on a false premise....again if you had actually read my earlier posts you may have cottoned on to that...

....as for the telephone book...I was actually looking for the book...not a number in the book but the book itself...again we find you either not bothering to read or not understanding what I had written...

...as for the reg...Echoes gave you the clue ( though you probably didn't read/understand that either ) go find it yourself if its that important to you...and you can review it at your pleasure and then show us the error of our ways and prove us wrong....then we'll all be happy as the mystery will be solved...

...and please, before you go shooting your mouth off again, at least try to comprehend what you are commenting on, otherwise you end up looking rather foolish...and we wouldn't want to see that because we really care about you...really we do...

Cheers

blutto

In that case - you should have said that group intead of this group.


As you appear to be getting angrier - please just read what I asked for.

Here its is again - cite me the rule that you believe was broken and I will happily review it.

 

[blutto]

In that case - you should have said that group intead of this group.


As you appear to be getting angrier - please just read what I asked for.

Here its is again - cite me the rule that you believe was broken and I will happily review it.

...angry?..

...why should I be angry when I'm winning ?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

...angry?..

...why should I be angry when I'm winning ?...

Cheers

blutto

Only in your mind

 

[blutto]

Only in your mind

...very nicely put...a most interesting variation of the "one move and the Pollack dies" gambit...I got to hand it to youse...youse is one slick dude....

...thank you so very much....starting to turn into a rout...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...very nicely put...a most interesting variation of the "one move and the Pollack dies" gambit...I got to hand it to youse...youse is one slick dude....

...thank you so very much....starting to turn into a rout...

Cheers

blutto

...sorry man, but until you pull the rule you have been asked to recite out of your ass or a copy of an antiquated rulebook, you are not even in the game. Based on ANY legal interpretation in ANY given situation, if you cannot provide a rule to base a decision upon, you are just a blowhard with an dirty ***. Welcome to your world. You have succeeded in nothing but obfuscation. Dude, I certainly hope you are in no way associated with any legal profession. Keep blowing hard blutto, the wind is hot, and the smell is familiar.

Best Regards

TFF

 

[Anonymous]

...very nicely put...a most interesting variation of the "one move and the Pollack dies" gambit...I got to hand it to youse...youse is one slick dude....

...thank you so very much....starting to turn into a rout...

Cheers

blutto

...nice obscure chess reference though.

Oh, and need I note again that in the race up for discussion (to which a ruling is independent of, and not relevant to any ruling in any other instance...because races have people who make rulings like this PRECISELY BECAUSE there is an ambiguity that must be ruled upon), the ruling was that the bars were indeed legal for that race. Lemond won based upon the prevailing ruling in that given instance. What happened later or before is not germane in any way. Sorry, but if the rule (you know, the one you or your cohort cannot seem to be able to quote) was nebulous enough that a RULING by an OFFICIAL of the race was warranted. That's the problem in a country that relies on Napoleonic code as the source of its laws, if the code doesn't spell out PRECISELY, in UNAMBIGUOUS terms the dictates contained therein, they almost don't know what to do. THAT explains the inconsistency in the ruling in France more than anything. If the rule were clear, there would have been no need for interpretation. I guess relying on opinion and a grudge is all you guys have. Go with it, your protestations and pontifications are hilarious to anyone relying on logic and reason for making decisions.

 

[blutto]

...sorry man, but until you pull the rule you have been asked to recite out of your ass or a copy of an antiquated rulebook, you are not even in the game. Based on ANY legal interpretation in ANY given situation, if you cannot provide a rule to base a decision upon, you are just a blowhard with an dirty ***. Welcome to your world. You have succeeded in nothing but obfuscation. Dude, I certainly hope you are in no way associated with any legal profession. Keep blowing hard blutto, the wind is hot, and the smell is familiar.

Best Regards

TFF

...truth be known I'm not in the legal trade...but I do know that all fairly applied legal systems have a thing called an appeals process wherein really awful/arbitrary/unfair legal judgements are over-turned...have you ever heard of such a thing?...

....methings we could use an appeal here...

...oh and that blow hardy thingee is the sweet smell of success...and yes it does run hot...be careful, you may get burned, if you are on the wrong end of it...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

...nice obscure chess reference though.

Oh, and need I note again that in the race up for discussion (to which a ruling is independent of, and not relevant to any ruling in any other instance...because races have people who make rulings like this PRECISELY BECAUSE there is an ambiguity that must be ruled upon), the ruling was that the bars were indeed legal for that race. Lemond won based upon the prevailing ruling in that given instance. What happened later or before is not germane in any way. Sorry, but if the rule (you know, the one you or your cohort cannot seem to be able to quote) was nebulous enough that a RULING by an OFFICIAL of the race was warranted. That's the problem in a country that relies on Napoleonic code as the source of its laws, if the code doesn't spell out PRECISELY, in UNAMBIGUOUS terms the dictates contained therein, they almost don't know what to do. THAT explains the inconsistency in the ruling in France more than anything. If the rule were clear, there would have been no need for interpretation. I guess relying on opinion and a grudge is all you guys have. Go with it, your protestations and pontifications are hilarious to anyone relying on logic and reason for making decisions.

...while admittedly I am not a legal scholar I can tell after reading your last post that most certainly you are and a brilliant one at that...you really know your law...and how could anyone argue when you offer insightful insights like "What happened later or before is not germane in any way."...yep, brilliant, that's what you are...

...I mean the sheer genius of a line like "they almost don't know what to do" just takes my breath away...defining the core problem of the French legal system in one bold stroke like that...like double wow, man, you are soooo smart...

....and you know, this has got me thinkin', maybe I should leave this forum because down deep I don't think I can run with guys as genuinely geniused as youse, with your reason and logic, and stuff...really....honest...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...truth be known I'm not in the legal trade...but I do know that all fairly applied legal systems have a thing called an appeals process wherein really awful/arbitrary/unfair legal judgements are over-turned...have you ever heard of such a thing?...

....methings we could use an appeal here...

...oh and that blow hardy thingee is the sweet smell of success...and yes it does run hot...be careful, you may get burned, if you are on the wrong end of it...

Cheers

blutto

Interesting you should mention the appeals process. What was said process for the decision in said case? (...hey, simple test here for someone so obviously deficient in intelligence, was the decision overturned in that case? If no, why? The answer is the most obvious one.)

Now, the ruling of the official at the time made a clarification of the rule at hand, and his decision was that the bars were legal. That is the end of the line in that instance. You lose.

Best regards,

TFF

 

[Anonymous]

...while admittedly I am not a legal scholar I can tell after reading your last post that most certainly you are and a brilliant one at that...

...I mean the sheer genius of a line like "they almost don't know what to do" just takes my breath away...defining the core problem of the French legal system in one bold stroke like that...like double wow, man, you are soooo smart...and you know, this has got me thinkin', maybe I should leave this forum because down deep I don't think I can run with guys as genuinely geniused as youse, with your reason and logic, and stuff...really....honest...

Cheers

blutto

...interestingly, you obviously don't understand the basis of the French legal system. Maybe google "Napoleonic Code" and git u sum edumikation. (I won't do your heavy lifting for you. Look it up...right after you look up the 3 point rule you continue to assert, but cannot seem to quote. )

...sorry that your ignorance is so obvious to me, but I guess when you present yourself as though you have a point, when you actually don't, it must be a real tough thing to be called on it. Hey, I am sure it isn't the first time you have been left with your d!ck in your hand wondering if anyone will ever give you some again.

...you bet on a losing horse, deal with it.

Best regards,

TFF

 

[Anonymous]

...truth be known I'm not in the legal trade...but I do know that all fairly applied legal systems have a thing called an appeals process wherein really awful/arbitrary/unfair legal judgements are over-turned...have you ever heard of such a thing?...

....methings we could use an appeal here...

...oh and that blow hardy thingee is the sweet smell of success...and yes it does run hot...be careful, you may get burned, if you are on the wrong end of it...

Cheers

blutto

Oh, thanks for painting yourself into a corner with that statement. I didn't even have to work hard to expose it for its clear logical deficiency. Stupid argument, have you ever heard of such a thing?

Best regards,

TFF

Side note: $100 says you are reading the Wiki on Napoleonic Code right now. (No, I don't read minds)

 

[blutto]

Oh, thanks for paining yourself into a corner with that statement. I didn't even have to work hard to expose it for its clear logical deficiency. Stupid argument, have you ever heard of such a thing?

Best regards,

TFF

Side note: $100 says you are reading the Wiki on Napoleonic Code right now. (No, I don't read minds)

...nope...just got up from a nap and now eating a sandwich and drinking some coffee ( and banging away at a keyboard )...so it seems you have just lost a pile of loot...

...and naw I won't demand you cough up to me but it would be nice if you sent that cash as a donation to something deserving, like say, the Special Olympics...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...nope...just got up from a nap and now eating a sandwich and drinking some coffee ( and banging away at a keyboard )...so it seems you have just lost a pile of loot...

...and naw I won't demand you cough up to me but it would be nice if you sent that cash as a donation to something deserving, like say, the Special Olympics...

Cheers

blutto

...convenient story.

...I would prefer to donate my time to an organization like Special Olympics. People like you benefit so much more from that than just sending monetary donations to the organization.

Best regards

TFF