You've got a point there! We do seem to have a fondness for recent finishes, don't we? It's as if we're on a constant quest for the newest thrill, much like a bee flitting from one flower to the next. 
But let's not forget the 1989 Tour de France, where Greg LeMond's victory was indeed a sight to behold. But was it the surprise factor that made it so dramatic? Or was it the sheer determination of a man who'd been through the wringer and came out on top?
And what about Lance Armstrong's reign in 2003? Sure, it might have been a tad one-sided, but his dominance was a spectacle in its own right. Was it drama we were seeking, or were we simply in awe of a cycling titan?
Perhaps our fascination with the 'newer' finishes has more to do with the evolving narrative of the Tour de France. As the sport progresses, so too does the story – and we, the audience, are eager to turn the page.
So, are we victims of recency bias, or do we merely appreciate the evolution of the Tour's rich tapestry? The answer, dear friend, is for each of us to ponder and decide.
But let's not forget the 1989 Tour de France, where Greg LeMond's victory was indeed a sight to behold. But was it the surprise factor that made it so dramatic? Or was it the sheer determination of a man who'd been through the wringer and came out on top?
And what about Lance Armstrong's reign in 2003? Sure, it might have been a tad one-sided, but his dominance was a spectacle in its own right. Was it drama we were seeking, or were we simply in awe of a cycling titan?
Perhaps our fascination with the 'newer' finishes has more to do with the evolving narrative of the Tour de France. As the sport progresses, so too does the story – and we, the audience, are eager to turn the page.
So, are we victims of recency bias, or do we merely appreciate the evolution of the Tour's rich tapestry? The answer, dear friend, is for each of us to ponder and decide.
