# Talk:1998 Tour de France

Currently, the table states that after the 16th stage, Massi wore the polkadot jersey, and that Rinero received it after the 17th stage. This is strange, because the results of the 17th stage were nullified. The memoire du cyclisme archive shows that Massi did not start the 18th stage, so from that source I conclude that Rinero received the polkadot jersey after the 18th stage.
Actually, these tables need to be sourced, so the details can be checked. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is no mention of the stage 17 riders strike.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.13.124 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 

It is because nobody, including you, has added it yet. You seem to know how to add it on the this talk page, you can use the same method to add it on the articele. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The main bulk of the coverage of the EPO-retests should be in an separate article, like there is an separate article about the Festina affair, and/or maybe there should be an article called Doping the the 1998 Tour de France, but to have so much about the retests (which were quite random, as so few were tested, and so many tests missing/ruined in 2004) and so little about the Festina affair, which showed that basically the whole peloton was on everything they could get hold of in 1998, makes the article skewed.  --176.11.193.193 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you that the article could benefit of featuring a more balanced/complete summary paragraph about the Festina Affair. I am not sure though, that the article at the moment would benefit if we spin off the "retrospective test results" into a linked subarticle named "Retrospective EPO test for the 1998 Tour De France". In regards of how to define an "appropriate balance", my argument goes that at least 50% of all published 1998 Tour articles/books are about doping in the race - with less than 50% being about the results of the race (and in any case the two elements are intertwined, as we can not know the true race result without knowing the doping result, although I agree with you the point for 1998 is that all riders raced against each other equally doped - but this is also a significant point to highlight i.e. through showing the results of the retrospective EPO tests). As long as we keep having a 50-50 balance between "doping chapter" and "results chapter" (which in my opinion is something we have now), I on those merits consider it to be a balanced Wikipedia coverage of the event. If the doping chapter at some point of time becomes too large, then I agree we could spin-off all the retrospective+festina details into a subarticle named "Doping at the 1998 Tour de France" (along the style of the similar article named Doping at the 2007 Tour de France), leaving only a short summary chapter to be displayed in the main article. The only time this sort of spin-off has been done is however in 2007, with all other Tour articles (i.e. Tour de France 2008) having decided not to spin off the doping chapter. This is why I suggest, that we for the moment keep having the full doping chapter displayed in the main article. Danish Expert (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


### Renewed interest
I am getting going on working over this article to bring it to GA and FA status. I am pinging potentially interested editors @BaldBoris, Lugnuts, EdgeNavidad,  and Cs-wolves: Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been busy IRL. I'll try and start contributing over the next few days. I definitely will because I went and bought the two books and the guide mag on the race. By the way, feel free to copy-edit my adds. BaldBoris 22:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure on how to structure this article. So far, the overview is divided into race and doping. However, this is tricky in my opinion, considering that the whole affair impacted the racing itself so much, especially with the two strikes. I would therefore merge both together into one overview section. And then an aftermath section which deals with the fallout, trials (not too much detail) and retrospective tests. What are your thoughts?
Also, I feel that it is pretty useless to have two separate articles on Doping at the 1998 Tour de France and on the Festina affair. Those should be merged, shouldn't they? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How about a stand-alone "Doping and aftermath" section? I separated the doping article out because it was ridiculously outweighing the rest. It seems to be reasonably well referenced so I don't feel it needs deleting. It's not alone as there are 1999 and 2007 articles. A merge with Festina affair is probably best. BaldBoris 22:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I start to get the feeling that me editing the doping section is getting a little bit out of hand and most of what I am adding should be moved to the article on the Festina affair. What do you think, BaldBoris? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd it's now nearing the max length. Would you say all of the main info is there? There's also the pressing issue of merging the Doping at the 1998 Tour de France and Festina affair? BaldBoris 12:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, that needs to be tackled as well. I feel that I have found most of the information that I am able to find, though there are some loose ends. For instance, I don't know what happened to the TVM and BigMat riders. Did they also have trials? I simply haven't found information on that yet... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1998 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvccbike.com/tour/top_ten.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209134934/http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html to http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As I don't have van den Akker's book (yet) and can't find any rules and regulations, I'm unable to expand this section. BaldBoris 17:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to it asap! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I see that for 89 you summarised each classification result separately after the explanations. None of WPC's recognised race articles (including the ones that aren't) do it this way, with some having them together at the end of the race overview. The section to me is more of a guide. Looking forward, we need consistency. BaldBoris 20:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, this should be consistent. The inclusion in the 1989 article came from the GA review, where Sportsfan77777 suggested that this information should be included because it was already there for the yellow jersey (which someone had written before I started editing the article). I thought that made sense, considering the section is called "leadership" and also since not all of the information should be given in the table, but also be reflected in the prose. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

hi everyone! when ullrich lost the tour that day did he really suffer from hyperglycemia (too MUCH blood sugar)? i thought (and that might be wrong, i've just been reading it this way until today) he did not eat enough what would result in hypoglycemia (too LITTLE blood sugar). a quick google search seems to back the latter. am i completely missing something here? cheers 149.249.252.86 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)