Okay, in
this article is a recap of the last few legs of the Tour de France, namely of Lance Armstrong's finishes.
But what has completely stumped me is the following:
Quote:
|
Although he didn't win Sunday's stage on Mont Ventoux, he made the fastest climb to the summit in Tour history. He climbed 5,280 feet over 13 miles in 58 minutes, knocking 53 seconds off the previous best set by Marco Pantani two years ago.
|
How in the world can you have the fastest climb in history for a stage, but not win that stage?!? Are they timing something entirely different, such as from the bottom of the mountain to the top, which doesn't fully encompass the stage? If so, why didn't they mention that in the article?
07-22-2002, 03:58 PM
Threaded Mode
