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

[luckylegs]

Here's a pic of Yates winning the EMGP ITT on Sept. 3 with Scott DH aero bars (not Profile, my mistake).

Fignon won the Grand Prix Des Nations on Sept. 24 using Profile clip-ons.

 

[Race Radio]

Here's a pic of Yates winning the EMGP ITT on Sept. 3 with Scott DH aero bars (not Profile, my mistake).

Fignon won the Grand Prix Des Nations on Sept. 24 using Profile clip-ons.

Thank you for that. The interns at Public Strategies are now scrambling to think of another way to slime LeMond.

 

[md2020]

...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...

Without a comment from the official who made the decision it's impossible to know why he changed his mind from one race to the next. The personal relationships of all the parties involved and the politics surrounding both situations are important and we don't really have the details of any of that.

It was clearly a time when the UCI was struggling to come to grips with their rules with respect to advancements in technology. The history of cycling is littered with similar instances where technology crossed a line and made rulings difficult. Clearly (at least to me), the three point rule was difficult to interpret in this instance.

I can understand Fignon's feelings of being cheated in this case (especially with the later ruling), but that doesn't mean that Lemond did cheat or that the result is invalid.

 

[Oldman]

Without a comment from the official who made the decision it's impossible to know why he changed his mind from one race to the next. The personal relationships of all the parties involved and the politics surrounding both situations are important and we don't really have the details of any of that.

It was clearly a time when the UCI was struggling to come to grips with their rules with respect to advancements in technology. The history of cycling is littered with similar instances where technology crossed a line and made rulings difficult. Clearly (at least to me), the three point rule was difficult to interpret in this instance.

I can understand Fignon's feelings of being cheated in this case (especially with the later ruling), but that doesn't mean that Lemond did cheat or that the result is invalid.

The UCI's confusion was basically a response to new products flooding a market that traditionally was dominated by Euro manufacturers and major sponsors of Pro teams. Bikes of unusual geometry, materials and products that were unheard of were damaging the bottom line of those traditional bike makers. They needed time to catch up and the UCI responded.

Fignon not electing to use available and approved products was his choice.

 

[blutto]

Thank you for that. The interns at Public Strategies are now scrambling to think of another way to slime LeMond.

...you may want to check the reference below...it may be of interest...though of course you could argue that Public Strategies salted the past with this in anticipation of the present thread...they are very slick as we all know...and apparently have more operatives than did the Stasi...

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

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

Thank you for that. The interns at Public Strategies are now scrambling to think of another way to slime LeMond.

...you may want to check the reference below...it may be of interest...though of course you could argue that Public Strategies salted the past with this in anticipation of the present thread...they are very slick as we all know...and apparently have more operatives than did the Stasi...

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

...as an aside...have noticed you have been very active on this forum...during that time has anyone called you a sanctimonious dolt...just wondering?...


Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...you may want to check the reference below...it may be of interest...though of course you could argue that Public Strategies salted the past with this in anticipation of the present thread...they are very slick as we all know...and apparently have more operatives than did the Stasi...

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

Cheers

blutto

Obviously not that slick.

That was posted on page 3 of this very thread - and then you quoted it in your post following it.

Of course - this may not be a rehash - you could be another operative and your colleague failed to inform you, probably one of the dangers of covert operations?

 

[Race Radio]

...you may want to check the reference below...it may be of interest...though of course you could argue that Public Strategies salted the past with this in anticipation of the present thread...they are very slick as we all know...and apparently have more operatives than did the Stasi...

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

...as an aside...have noticed you have been very active on this forum...during that time has anyone called you a sanctimonious dolt...just wondering?...


Cheers

blutto

I choose to believe the pictures and my memory of the time. I remember very clearly that the post Tour TT's were won on the bars. It was reported fairly widely at the time and Pictures have been presented to show that this was the case.

The fact is LeMond won using a position that was legal, had already been used in international competition for months, and has been used to win every major TT since. Fignon had the opportunity to use the same position but chose not to.

 

[Echoes]

...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...

OK then. Shame you no longer have that article. But I've just re-read the early pages of this thread and the post from Le Breton on page 3, who stated that the 3-point rule was a consequence of Thierry Marie's saddle innovation in 1986. In any case the rule did exist !

I'm French-speaking (from Belgium). Perhaps I can translate to you the article from Cyclismag I posted above:

Au départ du GP Eddy Merckx contre-la-montre le 3 septembre, Laurent Fignon se présente avec un guidon de triathlète ajouté au guidon principal. Comme Greg LeMond et des coureurs de 7-Eleven au Tour de France. Manque de pot, le commissaire du GP Eddy Merckx, Nicolas Ledent, applique à la lettre le règlement qui interdit quatre points d'appui.
Six jours plus tard, associé à Thierry Marie, son équipier de Super U, il gagne le Trophée Baracchi avec le guidon de triathlète. Au départ du GP des Nations à Cannes le 24 septembre, les guidons sont de sortie. Les trois premiers Fignon, Wegmüller et Mottet, les mains jointes fendant l'air, battent le record de Charly Mottet sur les 90 km du parcours. Preuve de l'avantage indéniable procuré par ce quatrième appui.

At the start of the GP Eddy Merckx TT on September 3, Laurent Fignon comes up with tri-bars added to the main bars. Just like Greg LeMond and some riders from 7-Eleven at the Tour of France. Bad luck, the UCI official at the GP Eddy Merckx, Nicolas Ledent, strictly applies the rules that ban 4 leaning points. Six days later, along with Thierry Marie, his team mate from Super U, he wins the Baracchi Trophy with the tri-bars. At the start of the GP des Nations in Cannes, on September 24, the bars are widespread. The 1st 3 Fignon, Wegmüller and Mottet, with joined hands cutting the air, break Charly Mottet's record on the 90km of the route. Proof of the undeniable advantage provided by this fourth leaning point.

Fignon was a strange man. In his book he proudly reminded that he broke the GP des Nations record while he knew it was irrelevant.

Dont have any links to that admission , perhaps others can clarify?

I think I've read somewhere that Moser's admission concerned other track record that he broke in the following years but I may be wrong. In any case, Moser's performance is very suspicious, also from that angle.

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.

I don't quite understand. De Vlaeminck and Moser were team mates in 1984. Why should Moser pay for a team mate?

Here's a pic of Yates winning the EMGP ITT on Sept. 3 with Scott DH aero bars (not Profile, my mistake).

Very interesting pic. So Yates might have a case here and his one-piece bars might have fitted into the 3 point rules, which is definitely not the case for Fignon's and LeMond's clip-ons. I would rather call it "authorized cheating" and still think Van Hooydonck was screwed over.

Without a comment from the official who made the decision it's impossible to know why he changed his mind from one race to the next. The personal relationships of all the parties involved and the politics surrounding both situations are important and we don't really have the details of any of that.

On the link I've posted, it's clearly stated that the official strictly applied the 3-point rule. I know the author a little, read other articles from his and I can say he know a lot about cycling history, so I'm sure he's right.

The LeMondtards will have to prove me that this incident was just hallucination and that it never happened.

Clearly (at least to me), the three point rule was difficult to interpret in this instance.

That's a better argument than those I've read so far on this thread because at least you don't ignore facts. But still I think the 4th leaning point is very clear on those tri-bars as you can rest your elbows.

 

[blutto]

OK then. Shame you no longer have that article. But I've just re-read the early pages of this thread and the post from Le Breton on page 3, who stated that the 3-point rule was a consequence of Thierry Marie's saddle innovation in 1986. In any case the rule did exist !

I'm French-speaking (from Belgium). Perhaps I can translate to you the article from Cyclismag I posted above:



At the start of the GP Eddy Merckx TT on September 3, Laurent Fignon comes up with tri-bars added to the main bars. Just like Greg LeMond and some riders from 7-Eleven at the Tour of France. Bad luck, the UCI official at the GP Eddy Merckx, Nicolas Ledent, strictly applies the rules that ban 4 leaning points. Six days later, along with Thierry Marie, his team mate from Super U, he wins the Baracchi Trophy with the tri-bars. At the start of the GP des Nations in Cannes, on September 24, the bars are widespread. The 1st 3 Fignon, Wegmüller and Mottet, with joined hands cutting the air, break Charly Mottet's record on the 90km of the route. Proof of the undeniable advantage provided by this fourth leaning point.

Fignon was a strange man. In his book he proudly reminded that he broke the GP des Nations record while he knew it was irrelevant.



I think I've read somewhere that Moser's admission concerned other track record that he broke in the following years but I may be wrong. In any case, Moser's performance is very suspicious, also from that angle.



I don't quite understand. De Vlaeminck and Moser were team mates in 1984. Why should Moser pay for a team mate?



Very interesting pic. So Yates might have a case here and his one-piece bars might have fitted into the 3 point rules, which is definitely not the case for Fignon's and LeMond's clip-ons. I would rather call it "authorized cheating" and still think Van Hooydonck was screwed over.



On the link I've posted, it's clearly stated that the official strictly applied the 3-point rule. I know the author a little, read other articles from his and I can say he know a lot about cycling history, so I'm sure he's right.

The LeMondtards will have to prove me that this incident was just hallucination and that it never happened.



That's a better argument than those I've read so far on this thread because at least you don't ignore facts. But still I think the 4th leaning point is very clear on those tri-bars as you can rest your elbows.

...very sorry but that article is not to found...though the "inspiration",for the 3/4 point rule, the hip belt, does stand out in my memory because the concept was really stange...it consisted of a girdle-like belt that was attached to the top tube via a strap...functionally it tried to do a similar thing to the saddle in question...give the rider greater purchase thru which to apply power...as you can image this was potentionally a dangerous situation and its removal from the sport was probably a very good thing...

...keep in mind this rule didn't directly address the aero issue though it was used in that regard...and to complicate matters there is the aero add on rule which said nothing could be added that had a strictly aero function...and this may explain the Yates issue...so we have a situation were we have silly rules inconsistently applied by, in this case, an incompetant(?)/badly trained(?)/politically pressured(?) official...

...but as you pointed out Fignon's problems at the EMGP happened despite what the Familiars of Greg ( which is one the things that we call LeMondarts around these parts ) need to believe...they simply can't click our heels and make it go away, it should explained...

...why the rule was ignored after the EMGP...well the UCI had some major incentives to do same...sweeping a bad decision under the carpet was one...using the newly crowned innovator hero to crack the cash-cow US market was another....and equally important was to begin to make peace with the huge tri-athlete market which had up to this point been ignored by the powers that be ( and if a peace were to be attained dealing with the aero issue was very important because the tri-geeks weren't going to give up their go-fast toys )...in the end it was probably a decision made on expediency and money and not the fair application of an existing reg...too bad for Fignon...and great joy for the Minions of Greg who see any victory, no matter how tainted, as still a victory....methinks sort of like the followers of Lance in that regard ( which I guess could lead one to the conclusion that the basis of the war between the Greg and Lance chamois sniffers could simply be "projection of shadow" issues...)...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Derrick]

Echoes,it was at the start of MSR in 1985 that de Vlaeminck was telling anybody who would listen that he was still owed 40 million lire from 1984. I presume that was unpaid wages given that there were others who were evidently owed money from Moser/Gis. At the same time there was a story in the Dutch press that Johan Van der Velde was owed money by Ricordi- Pinarello which was stopping him from joining Kwantum as he felt that if he left the team he had no chance of ever getting what he was owed. I am sure you are well aware that there was hardly a rider on the circuit who hadn't been fiddled out of his money at one time or another.

 

[Echoes]

Oh I see. So he owed money from the team.

I thought Moser bought him the win. Any idea about the revelations he was about to make?

 

[Derrick]

I am afraid I really don't know what the "revelation" would be. There were always claims and counter claims but it was generally assumed that Moser had bought his 1984 MSR win. Buying a win! Hardly an uncommon occurence.

 

[slaing]

I would like to tell everyone a story.... After the 1989 Tour final time trial in which Lemond won using aero bars, I was an upset fan. Living in the USA, we were using Profile for Speed bars and knew the founder of that company William "Bill" Powers, who had attended the university in my town. My father had a bicycle business back then, so I had many connections. I phoned Bill on Monday after the Tour and asked for him to send me a pair of clip on Profile bars next day air as I was going to send them to France for Laurent. He offered to send them free of charge, but I insisted on paying for them. I received the bars and quickly sent them of to France with a letter.
I did not hear back from Laurent or the team, but did receive a phone call from Bill the Monday after the Grand Prix de Nations telling me he used those bars and shattered the course record. I was very proud to have done this and am very sad to see Laurent past.
Just wanted to let you all know. I want to thank the chap a few pages back for posting the photo of him winning the time trial. I have the old magazine - Miroir du Cyclisme with him on the front cover using the handle bars I sent.
cheers and all the best - Stuart Laing

 

[red_flanders]

I'm really struggling to understand what the ruling at the GP Eddy Merckx has to do with the ruling at the TdF or Fignon's comments (the topic of this thread).

It appears some folks have made it clear that there was inconsistent application of the 3-point rule during the '89 season. Got it. Not sure I see the point, but got it.

In the '89 Tour, the bars were allowed, and thus, legal. Everyone could use them, and most chose not to. The fact that Fignon and everyone else tried to use them AFTER the Tour speaks mostly to how getting your **** handed to you in spectacular, embarrassing fashion tends to change your opinion on certain things.

Fignon's comments are revisionist hair-splitting at best and sour grapes at worst. But all the great riders, LeMond certainly among them, have said some pretty silly things in interviews. Doesn't make their comments right, but of course is quite normal when you do a lot of interviews and your ego is on the line.

Fignon was a hell of a rider, a great rider, a legend, an attacking rider with Panache.

 

[Echoes]

I am afraid I really don't know what the "revelation" would be. There were always claims and counter claims but it was generally assumed that Moser had bought his 1984 MSR win. Buying a win! Hardly an uncommon occurence.

That's of course what first sprang to my mind. But, on the other hand, even though I don't know how the race went on, Moser finished alone, 20" ahead of a bunch of 40 riders. Surely he could not have corrupted 40 riders, could he?

I'm really struggling to understand what the ruling at the GP Eddy Merckx has to do with the ruling at the TdF or Fignon's comments (the topic of this thread).

It appears some folks have made it clear that there was inconsistent application of the 3-point rule during the '89 season. Got it. Not sure I see the point, but got it.

Since the UCI was in charge of the ruling on that matter (actually since Giro 1984) the rule should be the same for every rider on every race that are sanctioned by the UCI until they decide to change it, shouldn't it? The rule had existed since 1986, have we learned on this thread (Marie's back saddle) and they only changed it the next year (or later that year, I don't exactly know) when the rule had become null and void because every rider was using the bars. But what was against the rules during the GP Merckx should also have been against the rules during the Tour de France. By the way Fignon's comments during the Tour de France were actually irrelevant because as it clearly stands out from his book, it was not until the GP Merckx that he realized he had been screwed over. He should have lodged a complaint after Rennes but he didn't do it. That was his mistake and he knew it. Probably the reason why he NEVER felt bitter about it. I heard many interviews of his and read his book, I've never felt there was sour grapes on his part. He got on very well with LeMond, even 20 years later.



By the way thank you Stuart for your story. I don't really like aero-bars but I like "behind-the-screen" stories.

 

[ultimobici]

I've just begun reading Fignon's (RIP) autobiography. I always admired him, and while I was very much a Lemond fan in my youth, I was glad that Greg had a rival with the class of a Laurent Fignon. I was actually lucky enough to be in France for this year's Tour, and listening to his gruff, cancer-ravaged voice on the TV broadcasts really made me sad. He was a great champion and will be missed.

Anyway, very early in his book he makes the unequivocal claim that the aero bars Lemond famously used in the 1989 Tour's final time trial were patently illegal, and that Lemond's victory is tainted at best, or a travesty at worst. Watching back then, I remember that Lemond's bars were considered innovative, risky, even revolutionary. But not "illegal." Does anyone here have any insight into the facts behind Fignon's claim? (Beyond just sour grapes, that is -- and I have too much respect for him to suspect that it's just sour grapes.)

Suggest you and everyone who thinks that this is true of what Fignon wrote in Chapter 1 of his book go back to school and retake English.

Lemond is mentioned repeatedly but Fignon doesn't attach any blame to him. He does berate the officials, Guimard & himself. His words at the end of the chapter are very clear & honest.

Seeing Greg Lemond with the yellow jersey on his back- as is the custom in post-Tour races - I gritted my teeth. My blood froze. I'd had a distinct dislike for him before, but it just grew now. I know feeling that way was unreasonable, but that is just how it was.

The overwhelming impression I got from the chapter was that of a man kicking himself for not having challenged the decisions at the 89 Tour.

WRT the references to Lemond "cheating" that's BS. Riders are required to present their machine to the commissaires before the race. If it's passed it's legal for that race.

 

[ultimobici]

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.

Wrong.

The fork rotates sufficiently to allow the bike to be steered. Its slow speed manoeuvrability may be less agile than a regular headset but it was not banned.

Lemond used it in 84 as did Marie in 86. Neither were banned for the bars.

 

[red_flanders]

Since the UCI was in charge of the ruling on that matter (actually since Giro 1984) the rule should be the same for every rider on every race that are sanctioned by the UCI until they decide to change it, shouldn't it? The rule had existed since 1986, have we learned on this thread (Marie's back saddle) and they only changed it the next year (or later that year, I don't exactly know) when the rule had become null and void because every rider was using the bars. But what was against the rules during the GP Merckx should also have been against the rules during the Tour de France. By the way Fignon's comments during the Tour de France were actually irrelevant because as it clearly stands out from his book, it was not until the GP Merckx that he realized he had been screwed over. He should have lodged a complaint after Rennes but he didn't do it. That was his mistake and he knew it. Probably the reason why he NEVER felt bitter about it. I heard many interviews of his and read his book, I've never felt there was sour grapes on his part. He got on very well with LeMond, even 20 years later.

Right, I get that there seems to have been an inconsistent application of the rules. I said as much in the last post.

Fact is, they were ruled legal in the race in question, something you also don't dispute, so they can't be called "illegal" to the point of the thread and Fignon's comments.

He was not "screwed over", he failed to take advantage of the situation. He knew the bars were allowed, tried them, and decided NOT to use them.

I know he got on well with LeMond--that doesn't change the fact that claiming that the bars were illegal in the '89 Tour is simply not accurate, and is in fact revisionism. It's possible they "shouldn't have been allowed", but they were CLEARLY legal and he knew it.

 

[Echoes]

If I understand your point of view Flanders, for you what matters is what the officials decide on the spot and not what the UCI ruling (the text) says.

Because since the 3-point rules had existed long before (at least 1986) and would be applied afterwards (GP Merckx '89), we may assume that it existed during the Tour de France '89. And not only the officials should know the ruling but it is also meant to be known from the riders.

OK then some would tell me that it's all a matter of interpretation and hard to decide, but as it was no innovation at the time (we've learnt on this thread about the Ironman New Zealand and the 7-Eleven during the Tour de Trump), they had time to decide and interpret the rule correctly and could someone show me whether it was hard to decide whether the tri-bars did provide a 4th point or not?

 

[Oldman]

Right, I get that there seems to have been an inconsistent application of the rules. I said as much in the last post.

Fact is, they were ruled legal in the race in question, something you also don't dispute, so they can't be called "illegal" to the point of the thread and Fignon's comments.

He was not "screwed over", he failed to take advantage of the situation. He knew the bars were allowed, tried them, and decided NOT to use them.

I know he got on well with LeMond--that doesn't change the fact that claiming that the bars were illegal in the '89 Tour is simply not accurate, and is in fact revisionism. It's possible they "shouldn't have been allowed", but they were CLEARLY legal and he knew it.

Keep saying it and eventually it will sink in-unless the person has an axe to grind with Lemond.

 

[md2020]

OK then some would tell me that it's all a matter of interpretation and hard to decide, but as it was no innovation at the time (we've learnt on this thread about the Ironman New Zealand and the 7-Eleven during the Tour de Trump), they had time to decide and interpret the rule correctly and could someone show me whether it was hard to decide whether the tri-bars did provide a 4th point or not?

Why would the UCI care about them showing up in the Ironman or the Tour de Trump? What's more relevant is knowing when the first rider showed up to the starting line in a pro race in Europe where a UCI official would have to make a ruling.

As for the 3 point rule, it's tricky. If normal handlebars are considered a single point then I think you could reasonably interpret that the aero bars are a single point as well. The fact that there was a time when they allowed single piece aero bars and not clip-ons supports this theory.

Fignon thought he could win despite the bars and he didn't. Considering that it was a factor in him losing the closest TdF ever and the fact that it was a tenuous ruling (which was reversed against him in the GP Merckx), I can definitely understand Fignon's feeling of being screwed. It probably wouldn't have taken too much to get the bars ruled illegal in the TdF but I don't think he tried, thus the regret for not protesting the ruling more vehemently at the time.

 

[Echoes]

I've talked about all that with a friend of mine who knows a lot about 80's cycling and I've learned many other things.

1) ANDY HAMPSTEN WAS KEPT FROM RIDING THE GIRO '89 ITT's WITH THE TRI-BARS.

Just wonder why this had not been mentioned before. I didn't know it. He was defending champion on such a major race. It shouldn't have gone unnoticed.

2) About Marie's back saddle (selle à dossier):

After the Tour prologue 1986, Peter Post lodged a complaint for his rider Vanderaerden who finished second. It was rejected although the Tour ruling (I thought the race organisers were no longer in charge but apparently yes) Article 4bis said:

il demeure que les dispositifs ajoutés à la bicyclette ou a l'équipement du coureur, ou assimiliables à des carénages, seront interdits.

The devices added to the bike or the rider's equipment, or assimilated to fairing will be banned. (my translation)

Chany said: "It was exactly the case but we know there are always several interpretations of the same law"

3) About the 1987 100km TTT Worlds:

Article from L'Équipe:

"Quand la victoire tient à un fil"

Les Italiens ont couru en utilisant un système ingénieux, composé d'une large ceinture intégrée à la combinaison et reliée à la potence du guidon par un filin armé d'un mousqueton ! Il s'était donné de la sorte un 4e point d'appui sur le vélo, un peu comme T.Marie lors du prologue du TDF 86, alors que le règlement est formel : trois points d'appui seulement, selle, guidon et pédales.
Afin de déjouer la vigilance du commissaire roumain, commis à la vérification du matériel, les quatre transalpins s'étaient d'ailleurs présentés sur la ligne au tout dernier moment, le filin sortant à peine de la combinaison. Puis le départ étant donné, les quatre "azzuri" s'étaient empressés de tirer sur le fil et d'accrocher le mousqueton à la potence. Après l'arrivée, il fut un temps question de les déclasser, mais l'UCI a préféré s'accorder un délai de réflexion, avant de prendre une décision, qui fera des mécontents quelle qu'elle soit."

"On nous annonce déjà que le point d'attache sera interdit l'an prochain, mais on constate, une fois encore, que les techniciens de l'UCI se sont laissé prendre de vitesse."

Sorry, I have no time for a translation now but I might come back to it if you're interested.

 

[ultimobici]

I've talked about all that with a friend of mine who knows a lot about 80's cycling and I've learned many other things.

1) ANDY HAMPSTEN WAS KEPT FROM THE GIRO '89 BECAUSE OF THE TRI-BARS.

Just wonder why this had not been mentioned before. I didn't know it. He was defending champion on such a major race. It shouldn't have gone unnoticed.

Probably because your friend needs to check his facts! Hampsten was not prevented from starting the Giro. He was 3rd at 2'46". Tri-bars were not a factor at all. A resurgent Fignon was his problem.

2) About Marie's back saddle (selle à dossier):

After the Tour prologue 1986, Peter Post lodged a complaint for his rider Vanderaerden who finished second. It was rejected although the Tour ruling (I thought the race organisers were no longer in charge but apparently yes) Article 4bis said:

il demeure que les dispositifs ajoutés à la bicyclette ou a l'équipement du coureur, ou assimiliables à des carénages, seront interdits.

The devices added to the bike or the rider's equipment, or assimilated to fairing will be banned. (my translation)

Chany said: "It was exactly the case but we know there are always several interpretations of the same law"

The Tour's attitude to rules handed down to it has been relaxed on many points. That year Levitan decided on 21 10 man teams which was widely criticised as being dangerous.

 

[Echoes]

Probably because your friend needs to check his facts! Hampsten was not prevented from starting the Giro. He was 3rd at 2'46". Tri-bars were not a factor at all. A resurgent Fignon was his problem.

I rather trust him. So could he mean Hampsten was forced to use normal bars?

(I'm editing my previous post)