1976 Tangerine Bowl, Background
BYU was champion of the WAC for the third time in 11 years. The Cowboys went 3-1 against ranked opponents (beating #8 Kansas, #5 Oklahoma, and #14 Iowa State while losing to #9 Nebraska) while finishing in a three-way tie (the first and only time this occurred in conference history) in the Big Eight with Oklahoma and Colorado, with the former going to the Fiesta Bowl and the latter (who beat Oklahoma State) going to the Orange Bowl. The Cowboys were invited to the Tangerine Bowl, their second bowl appearance in three seasons. The two teams had met previously in the 1974 Fiesta Bowl.


1976 Tangerine Bowl, Game summary
Terry Miller rushed for 173 yards on 23 carries for the Cowboys, who scored 21 straight points in the third quarter to pull away from the Cougars.


1976 Tangerine Bowl, Aftermath
The Cougars returned to this bowl nine years later, by which time the game's name had changed and it was the 1985 Florida Citrus Bowl, while the Cowboys have not returned to this bowl.


1976 Tangshan earthquake
The 1976 Tangshan earthquake (Chinese: 唐山大地震; pinyin: Tángshān dà dìzhèn; lit. ' Great Tangshan earthquake'), also known as the Great Tangshan earthquake, was a natural disaster resulting from a magnitude 7.6 earthquake that hit the region around Tangshan, Hebei, People's Republic of China on 28 July 1976, at 3:42 in the morning. The maximum intensity of the earthquake was XI (Extreme) on the Mercali scale. In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged. At least 242,000 people died (some have said three times that), making this the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history. The lack of warning and foreshocks, in contrast to the earlier 1975 Haicheng earthquake, was a principal factor in the large number of casualties.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, The earthquakes
The Tangshan earthquake was complex, with multiple events. There were two main shocks. The first struck at 3:42:56 in the morning (local time), approximately 12 km under the southern part of Tangshan. The magnitude was initially estimated at around 8.1, subsequently recalculated to be 7.6 on the standard Mw scale. However, that scale measures only the total energy released by an earthquake, and earthquakes vary in how much of that energy is converted to seismic shaking.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, The earthquakes
The Tangshan quake, being relatively shallow, converted much of its energy to surface shaking, and on the Ms (surface magnitude) scale it also measured 7.6. (7.8 on the Chinese surface magnitude scale.) This "occurred on a near vertical right-lateral strike-slip fault, striking N40°E", the block on the southeast side sliding about three meters to the southwest. This resulted from tectonic compression on a nearly west–east axis. Surface rupturing occurred in five en echelon segments extending eight kilometers through the center of Tangshan.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, The earthquakes
The second main shock, with a magnitude 7.0 Mw , or 7.4 Ms , struck that afternoon at 18:45 near Luanhsien (Luanxian), about 70 km to the east-northeast ("B" on the intensity map in the next section), just south of the northeastern end of the Tangshan fault. This occurred in a zone of north-northwest striking conjugate faults that cut across the north end of the Tangshan fault. The left-lateral motion here, along with the right-lateral motion on the Tangshan fault, suggests that as the crustal blocks to the west and east are compressed together the block between these two earthquakes is being squeezed out to the south.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, The earthquakes
A long sequence of aftershocks followed, with twelve of magnitude 6 or greater. The first of these struck just three and a half hours after the initial shock, at 7:17, at the southern end of Tangshan fault, near Ninghe ("C" on the map in the section below), with a magnitude of 6.2 Ms . Another significant aftershock (Ms 6.9) occurred in November near Ninghe. Most aftershocks occurred between these end points, in a zone 140 km long and about 50 km wide. Many buildings were further damaged by the aftershocks.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage
The damage done by an earthquake depends primarily on two factors. First, the intensity of shaking, which depends mainly on the magnitude of the earthquake rupture, the distance from the epicenter, and the nature of the local soil and topography, with soft soils (e.g., sediments and fill) more likely to amplify the intensity and duration of the shaking. Second, the design and construction of the structures being shaken, with houses built of adobe or stone, wooden houses without a well-built frame, and unreinforced masonry construction being especially vulnerable. The seismic risk had been greatly underestimated and almost all buildings and structures were designed and built without seismic considerations. As a result, Tangshan was "mainly a city of unreinforced brick buildings", sitting right on top of a major fault line.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage
The power (magnitude) of the Tangshan earthquake is indicated by the extent of where it was felt: up to 1,100 km (680 mi) away, across most of northeastern China, and even in Mongolia and Korea. In and around Beijing, 140 km (87 mi) from the epicenter, the shaking reached an intensity of VI on the Chinese intensity scale (similar to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale), with nearly 10% of all buildings damaged, and at least 50 fatalities.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity XI and X zone
The rupture occurred under the southern part of the city, and propagated northeastward on a fault that runs through the middle of the city. The maximum intensity was "XI" (eleven) on the 12-degree Chinese scale. Nearly every building and structure in the city collapsed, wholly or partially, infrastructure was severely damaged, and essential services such as electric power, water supply, and communications were entirely knocked out. This area of maximum damage – the meizoseismal area – was approximately 10.5 kilometres (6.5 mi) long and from 3.5 to 5.5 km wide, centered roughly along the railway.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity XI and X zone
The area of intensity X shaking – where only new, one-story brick buildings were merely "damaged or slightly damaged", the rest being severely damaged or worse – was 36 km long and 15 km across. In this "high intensity" zone (intensity X and XI, within the red contour on the map) 20 highway bridges and five railway bridges cross the Douhe River in Tangshan; only six survived with only minor damage.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity IX and VIII zone
Shaking of intensity IX (or greater) occurred in a zone roughly 78 km (48 mi) long and 42 km (26 mi) (about 1800 km2, inner orange contour on the map), and also around the aftershocks at Luanxian and Ninghe. In this zone most buildings classified as Class III (well-built buildings of wood, masonry, or reinforced concrete) survived, but many Class II buildings (typically old wood-frame buildings lacking a well-built frame, and quite common outside of the cities) were destroyed, while a majority of Class I buildings (built of adobe or stone) were destroyed.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity IX and VIII zone
Further out (to the outer orange contour), and around the city of Tianjin and a few isolated patches, intensity VIII shaking mostly affected Class I buildings (more than half destroyed), bridges, and tall brick chimneys. Railway track was also subject to bending or displacement, depending on soil conditions.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity VII zone
The zone of intensity VII shaking – inside the dark brown contour – marks the extent of moderate damage, where many Class I structures (of weak design or construction) were damaged but only "few"—between 10% and 30%—were destroyed, and only a "few" Class two buildings damaged. This ellipsoid zone extended about 75 km north and south of Tangshan and 120 km east and west, from about 25 km short of Beijing to short of Qinhuangdao City (which had anomalously higher shaking), and from the Sea of Bohai in the south and southwest to just north of Zunhua. The north–south shortening of this zone is attributed to buttressing by the bedrock of the Yanshin mountains.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Intensity VII zone
Significant damage occurred beyond this in the VI zone, but (like in Beijing) affected less than 10% of the buildings, or occurred in small localized areas.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Coal mines
Mining coal is Tangshan's principal industry, and when the quake struck around 10,000 miners were underground. For the most part the mine roadways (tunnels) were not seriously damaged, but with the loss of electrical power there was no illumination (aside from headlamps), no ventilation, and no working lifts. It is reported that most miners escaped within hours, but that some did not reach the surface until two weeks later.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Coal mines
Most of the damage to the vertical shafts occurred within the first 50 meters, where they pass through the water-bearing alluvium. In many cases the concrete liner built to keep out the water cracked (particularly where not built properly), allowing a much greater inflow of water. Coupled with damage to the underground drainage system and lack of power to drive the pumps, many of the various mines flooded.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Coal mines
Some electrical power to the mines was restored in three days, and some coal production resumed within ten days. However, de-watering, overhauling of flooded electrical equipment, and rebuilding of surface buildings and structures continued for a year and a half; the pre-earthquake level of production was not reached until the end of 1977.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
The Beijing–Shanhaiguan Railway (built in 1887) is a double-track Class I trunk line that runs from Beijing southeast to Tianjin and Tanggu, then turns northeast to cross the Yongdingxin River and its estuary to run to Ninghe and then Tangshan. From Tangshan it continues northeast and then east to Chengli, and then to Qinhuangdao and Shanhaiguan. This is the principal connection of Beijing, Tianjin, and Tangshan to the seaports, and to Northeast China.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
The Tongxian to Tuozitou (within modern-day Luan County) Railway (built in 1976) is a single-track Class I trunk line that runs east from the eastern outskirts of Beijing to where it meets the Beijing to Shanhaiguan line northeast of Tangshan (near the epicenter of the M 7.1 quake). All of this was built "with no consideration for earthquake resistant design", although some "earthquake resistance measures" for large and medium bridges were applied following the 1975 Haicheng earthquake.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
These vital arteries (and other railways and branch lines) were seriously damaged by the earthquakes, mainly in the areas of intensity IX or greater shaking. (This includes a large area around Tangshan quake, and areas around Ninghe and Luanhsien following the M 6.9 and M 7.4 aftershocks.)


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
At the time of the main quake there were 28 freight trains and seven passenger trains traveling on the Beijing–Shanhaiguan line in the affected area; seven freight trains and two passenger trains derailed due to derangement of the rails, mostly south of Tangshan where the line was built on loose alluvium, diluvium, and occasional stretches of loose sand. In many of these cases – and also similar cases northeast of Tangshan, and on the Tongxian–Tuozitou line east of Fengrun – the railway embankment slumped due to weak soils. In other cases the embankment held, but transverse compression of the rails caused them to buckle.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
Railway operations were further impaired by the loss of communications (including signalling) and water supply (for the steam locomotives), in both cases due mainly to collapse of buildings and loss of electrical power. However, the most serious damage, taking the most manpower and longest time to repair, was that involving bridges. Most difficult was where soft or liquefied soil allowed the bank to slide into the river, shifting the abutments. A more frequent problem was where an approach embankment subsided, typically leaving the rails suspended from the abutment. There were numerous cases where concrete piers and abutments were damaged due to inadequate design and construction; bridges that were strengthened following the Haicheng earthquake survived with only slight damage.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
It was observed that at intensity VII and above damage to the roadbed was correlated mainly with loose soil and a high water table. Conversely, bridges and rails in Tangshan City, built on dense soil with a deep water table, were largely undamaged even though subject to intensity XI shaking.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Damage, Railways
Over forty-two thousand people were mobilized to quickly effect emergency repair of the railways. The Tongxian-Tuozitou line was opened for traffic on 3 August, single track of the Beijing-Shanhaiguan line opened on 7 August, and both tracks on 10 August, albeit at restricted speeds over temporary bridges and at other places where repairs were not yet complete.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll
Estimates of the number of deaths due to the Tangshan earthquake have varied widely, and generally lack a clear authoritative basis.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
One of the earliest reports outside of China came on 28 July 1976 from the International Tsunami Information Center, reporting that a "violent" earthquake, initially estimated at about magnitude 8.1, had struck "in the vicinity of Peking" (Beijing). Center Director Dr. George Pararas-Carayannis was reported as saying that "if the quake hit in a populated area reports of considerable damage could be expected."


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
News reports the next day located the quake "about 100 miles (160 km) southeast of Peking and 63 miles (101 km) northeast of Tientsen" (Tianjin); i.e., "almost precisely in Tangshan". The Chinese Communist party's Central Committee also broadcast a statement that the quake "caused great losses to people's life and property". One of the first reports from Tangshan said "nearly every building in the city ... was flattened." There were several reports of 50 people killed in Beijing, a 100 miles (160 km) from the epicenter.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
According to author Stephen Spignesi, a "couple of days" after the quake Dr. Pararas-Carayannis gave United Press International (UPI) an estimate of 700,000 to 750,000 deaths, based on a similar sized earthquake in Shaanxi province in 1556 that caused 830,000 deaths. Pararas-Carayannis' current web page says only that "it was fairly accurately estimated that there were at least 655,000 people dead," without mentioning by whom or on what basis this estimate was made.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
In August the Nationalist Chinese government in Taiwan announced that, according to their agents in China, the death toll was over 100,000, with about 900,000 injured. They also reported that "almost all buildings in Tangshan were leveled", and 80 percent of homes and buildings in Tianjin "suffered damage to some extent".


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
The following January (1977) the Nationalists released a document they said had been presented at an emergency conference on relief work the previous August by the Hopeh Provincial Committee of the party and the Hopeh Revolutionary Committee. According to this document: "in such seriously stricken areas as Tangshan municipality, and Fengnan and Feng-yun, there were 655,237 persons dead. Some 79,000 persons were seriously injured, and some 700,000 persons suffered various degrees of injuries." Though these figures have been widely cited, it does not appear there has ever been inquiry into how they were derived, of whether they were an initial estimate (made in the first few days following the quake), or had a more solid basis.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Early reports
In following June it was reported that the Chinese authorities had briefed seismologist Cinna Lomnitz about Tangshan. It was noted that though no figures were provided, they did not deny any published estimates.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Official figures
A 1988 book by several members of the Chinese State Seismological Bureau states that 242,419 people died in the quake, which reflects the official figure reported by the state-run Xinhua News Agency. A webpage of the Chinese Earthquake Administration dated 2009 also attributes "242,769 deaths and 164,851 serious injuries" to the Tangshan quake based on an early 1982 study.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Official figures
There are various reports that the "official death toll was later given by the Chinese government as 275,000", without specifying a source.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Death toll, Official figures
As of 2017, the Tangshan Earthquake Memorial Wall contained the names of 246,465 victims, who were registered by relatives.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Political aspects
The remarkably low death toll of the Haicheng earthquake the previous year – initially said to be fewer than 300, much later estimated at a still very modest 2,041– had been credited to measures taken in response to an accurate and timely prediction. This was touted as demonstrating the validity of the Chinese methods of earthquake prediction (including inspiration from "Mao Zedong Thought") and "the superiority of our country's socialist system!"


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Political aspects
With China in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, "belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing deviationists", and it was everyone's duty to criticize those who doubted the feasibility of earthquake prediction.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Political aspects
As a backdrop to this, and of deep concern to the Chinese Communist Party, was a collectively recognized but unvoiced awareness that in traditional Chinese belief, natural disasters are considered disruptions in the natural order of "heaven" (Tian) and may signify the loss of legitimacy (the "mandate of heaven") of the current government. This view was underlined by a magnitude 6.7 earthquake in southwestern China just three weeks later.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Political aspects
On the other hand, an ongoing mass education campaign before the quake showed that the government was aware and concerned, and the prompt and massive response following the quake demonstrated the government's competence to alleviate suffering and restore normal production, drawing on resources from across the nation. This was contrasted with the hardships faced by disaster victims (especially the poor) under previous regimes, where assistance was lacking.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
Tangshan lies at the northern edge of the Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan Plain, an alluvial plain that stretches from Beijing to the Sea of Bohai. This plain – the northeastern corner of the great North China Plain – is where sediments eroded from the Yanshan mountains to the north have filled in the ancient Sea of Bohai, with Tangshan near where the shore was about 4,000 years ago. To the south these sediments have formed a layer of weak soils as much as three kilometers thick.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
At Tangshan and northward these sediments are thinner where the underlying strata crops out to form isolated hills. This underlying strata is a thick (typically 10 km) layer of mainly sedimentary strata such as limestone and sandstone, with large deposits of coal. Tangshan is located particularly over a northeast oriented syncline, a fold in the sedimentary strata that has brought massive deposits of coal close enough to the surface to be mined. In this area the overlying alluvium varies in thickness from several meters to around 600 m (2,000 ft).


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
Underlying all this is the ancient bedrock of different kinds of metamorphic rock (such as schist, gneiss, quartzite, granulite, etc.) that form the Eastern Block of the North China Craton. This craton (see figure) was formed approximately two billion years ago by the collision of two major crustal blocks that left a belt of uplifted mountains – the Central (China) Orogenic Belt (COB) – that crosses China approximately southwest to northeast, passing just west and north of Beijing.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
Just north of Zunhua another orogenic belt, the east–west trending Yanshan mountain fault-fold belt (also known as the Yanshan seismic belt) marks the northern edge of the North China Craton (and of the alluvial plain). It is also the location of over half of the destructive earthquakes in Hebei province, as under the plain several fault zones (oriented parallel to the Central Orogenic Belt) terminate against the Yanshan mountains.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
Many of these faults are ancient, but have been reactivated by the force transmitted from the collision of the Indian Plate against the Eurasian Plate, making the Eastern Block unusually active seismically, accounting for six of the ten deadliest earthquakes in recorded history.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Geology
The Tangshan fault that ruptured 28 July runs right under the center of Tangshan City. One of three faults in the Changdong fault zone, it runs approximately east-northeast (ENE) about 36 km to where it terminates against the north–south trending fault where, just to the south, the secondary M 7.1 quake occurred ("B" on the 'shaking' map). The southern end of the Tangshan fault (it bends slightly at Tangshan) is near Ninghe, which was also the site of a M 6.2 earthquake several hours after the main shock, and an M 6.9 quake ("C") the following November. The Tangshan fault is considered shallow, but corresponds with a deeper and younger fault with somewhat differing characteristics.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
Whether the Tangshan earthquake was predicted has had considerable political as well as seismological significance.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
The 1975 Haicheng earthquake (about 400 km [250 miles] northeast of Tangshan) was widely hailed as the first (and, by mainstream seismologists, the only) successful prediction of a major earthquake, demonstrating both that earthquakes could be predicted, and that the Chinese were successfully doing so.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
The surprisingly light death toll – initial reports were of "very few people killed", but later determined to be a modest 2,041—for this magnitude Ms 7.5 quake, attributed to the precautionary measures taken following a definite short-term prediction, was proclaimed as a demonstration of the superiority of China's socialist system, and incidentally a validation of the Chinese methodologies.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
However, it was later determined that the most important factor in anticipating the Haicheng earthquake was the extended series of significant foreshocks ("powerful messages from nature"), and the low casualty rate was due largely to the time of day, hitting in the early evening when most people were neither at work nor asleep.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
Tangshan was not so fortunate. Seventeen months later the 242,419 fatalities of the similarly-sized Tangshan earthquake was therefore a considerable shock politically as well as seismically. While some of this greater mortality might be attributed to the exposure of a larger population, or the time of day (Haicheng was struck in the early evening, Tangshan while most people were asleep), the principal factor appeared to be the failure to take any precautionary measures: Tangshan was entirely unprepared.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
At the time, the Chinese methods of earthquake prediction mainly consisted of watching for various precursors, including foreshocks, and were celebrated for their success at Haicheng and elsewhere. Many seismologists consider the Tangshan earthquakes to have not been predicted, even "famously unpredicted", and that it was not predictable due to a lack of precursory anomalous phenomena. Furthermore, an investigation 30 years later found that there was no official short-term prediction of an imminent earthquake at Haicheng, and that, though there were many unofficial predictions of an imminent quake, none of those had a scientific basis. The warnings that were made and precautions taken happened largely at the local level, based on general middle-term predictions, enhanced public awareness due to an educational campaign, and a series of foreshocks. It is significant that at Tangshan there were no perceptible foreshocks.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
On the other hand, it is reported that several people at the State Seismological Bureau (SSB) wanted to warn of an impending earthquake somewhere in the region between Beijing and the Bohai Sea, and that this was discussed at several meetings. One of these was a week-long national conference on earthquake predictions and preparation that convened in Tangshan on 14 July (two weeks before the earthquake) where Wang Chengmin is said to have warned there could be a magnitude 5+ earthquake in the Tangshan—Luanxian area between 22 July and 5 August.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
However, in addition to the distractions of the Cultural Revolution, there was a possible disagreement within the SSB on whether the next large earthquake would be in eastern China (e.g. the Beijing area) or western China, and that in May it had been concluded that no major earthquakes would occur in the Beijing–Tangshan area. As it turned out, western China was hit by the magnitude 7.2 Songpan-Pingwu earthquake only three weeks after Tangshan, showing that those arguing for the imminence of an earthquake in Western China were not entirely wrong.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
At another meeting, on 26 July, there was a purported suggestion to not issue any warning, to avoid alarming the population. The next morning, at an emergency meeting he requested with the Bureau's leadership, Wang was reportedly told by Deputy Chief Cha Zhiyuan that "We are currently very busy. We will discuss it again next week." However, Cha has disputed this, claiming that Wang said there would be no major earthquakes. Another account says Wang was directed to submit more information, then send a small group to observe the earthquake.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
Some of the bureaucratic reticence to issue warnings and order precautionary measures likely resulted from too many predictions. These were often based on doubtful theories notorious for false alarms that earthquakes can be predicted on the basis of droughts, daily temperatures, variations in geomagnetism, or isolated anomalous phenomena. They were often too broad (magnitude "of at least 4.0 in the area of Beijing, Tianjin, Huailai, Tangshan, Bohai, and Zhangjiakou", "in a few years") to warrant large-scale societal and economic disruption.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Question of prediction
Such disruptions could be serious: a false alarm in October, 1976, issued by the Shaanxi provincial government, is estimated to have disrupted the lives of 65% of the population of that province for half a year. It has also been estimated that "in the fall of 1976 about 400 million of the then total population of 930 million of China spent some nights in temporary earthquake shelters." This illustrates the classic dilemma of earthquake prediction: increasing the sensitivity to the possibility of an earthquake (i.e., reducing the failure to predict) increases the number false alarms, which often has a significant cost.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Comparison
Comparison of the Tangshan death toll – officially 242,419—with other earthquake disasters is problematical because of uncertainty in the statistics. For example, the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake (estimated magnitude of ~8) is generally said to have been the deadliest earthquake disaster in history, with 830,000 deaths, based on Chinese historical records. However, a Chinese language source argues for only 530,000 deaths from the earthquake itself, with the larger number being the total reduction of population due to deaths from all causes (including exposure, disease, and famine) as well as people leaving the region due to economic collapse. Another Chinese source states (without citing any sources) that the 1556 earthquake killed only about 100,000 directly, with another 700,000 dying of disease. Depending on what basis is used, the Tangshan disaster can thus be considered as approximately one-third, one-half, or twice as deadly as the Shaanxi disaster.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Comparison
The other five deadliest earthquake disasters known in history, with magnitudes ranging from 7.0 to 9.1, have had death tolls just under that of Tangshan's:


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Comparison
Although unprepared, compared to other earthquake disasters Tangshan did not experience significant common secondary disasters arising from fire, tsunami, landsliding, or flooding due to blocking of rivers or breaching of dikes. A dam holding back a large reservoir just above Tangshan was seriously damaged but did not fail; similarly for another dam that imperiled Tianjin and some outlying districts of Beijing.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Comparison
The immediate and massive response by the government resulted in the rescue of thousands of people in the first two days (after which mortality increases rapidly), while prompt attention to the problems of clean water, food, and public health avoided the mortality due to epidemic disease and starvation that often follows such disasters.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Cultural references
Chinese director Feng Xiaogang's 2010 drama film Aftershock gives an account of the earthquake and its effects.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Cultural references
Footage of the incident appeared in the film Days of Fury (1979), directed by Fred Warshofsky and hosted by Vincent Price.


1976 Tangshan earthquake, Cultural references
Jung Chang's 1991 book Wild Swans gives a short account of the population's reaction  to the earthquake and fear of more as well as the Gang of Four's priority to continue denouncing Deng Xiaoping.


1976 Tasmanian state election
The Tasmanian state election, 1976 was held on 11 December 1976  in the Australian state of Tasmania to elect 35 members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly. The election used the Hare-Clark proportional representation system — seven members were elected from each of five electorates.


1976 Tasmanian state election
The incumbent Labor Party, led by Bill Neilson, won a second term against the opposition Liberal Party, led by Max Bingham.


1976 Tasmanian state election, Background
Labor had won the 1972 election, by a landslide margin of 7 seats, with Labor leader Eric Reece elected as Premier of Tasmania for the second time. Reece retired from Parliament on 31 March 1975, after the ALP introduced a mandatory retirement age of 65. Liberal Party leader Angus Bethune retired three months later, and was replaced by Max Bingham.


1976 Tasmanian state election, Results
Labor won the election, although their majority was reduced to one seat.


1976 Tasmanian state election, Results
Tasmanian state election, 11 December 1976House of Assembly << 1972–1979 >>


1976 Taxi Aereo el Venado Douglas DC-4 accident
The Taxi Aereo el Venado Douglas DC-4 accident occurred on 15 January 1976 when DC-4 HK-127, crashed 50 km (31 mi) from Bogota when it hit a mountain and was destroyed killing all 13 on board.


1976 Taxi Aereo el Venado Douglas DC-4 accident, Accident
The aircraft was on a domestic charter flight from Bogota-Eldorado Airport to La Macarena Airport with three crew and ten passengers. The aircraft took-off at 11:37 and the pilot reported his departure and said he would call at the next reporting point over El Boqueron. Nothing else was heard from the aircraft despite attempts by Air Traffic Control to contact them. Three hours later the local authorities in Chipaque reported that an aircraft had hit one of the peaks of the Western Cordilera at a height 3,540 m (11,610 ft), which had been hidden by clouds.


1976 Taxi Aereo el Venado Douglas DC-4 accident, Aircraft
The four-engined Douglas DC-4, former military Douglas C-54E, registered HK-127, was built in the United States by Douglas in Chicago. Construction / number 10280, was delivered to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) on 26 January 1944 and was sold after the war to Pan Am, later Avianca, until sold in 1972 to Taxi Aereo el Venado.


1976 Taça de Portugal Final
The 1976 Taça de Portugal Final was the final match of the 1975–76 Taça de Portugal, the 36th season of the Taça de Portugal, the premier Portuguese football cup competition organized by the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF). The match was played on 13 June 1976 at the Estádio das Antas in Porto, and opposed two Primeira Liga sides: Boavista and Vitória de Guimarães. Boavista were the defending champions, and they successfully defended their title defeating Vitória de Guimarães 2–1 to claim the Taça de Portugal for a second time.


1976 Tehran UFO incident
The 1976 Tehran UFO Incident  was a radar and visual sighting of an unidentified flying object (UFO) over Tehran, the capital of Iran, during the early morning hours of 19 September 1976. During the incident, two Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantom II jet interceptors reported losing instrumentation and communications as they approached the object. These were restored upon withdrawal. One of the aircraft also reported a temporary weapons systems failure while the crew was preparing to open fire.


1976 Tehran UFO incident
An initial report of the incident was relayed to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on 19 September 1976.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Incident
In the early hours of September 19, 1976, a shining object was reported in the sky above Tehran by at least four civilians. Lieutenant Yaddi Nazeri plus a backseat weapons officer were dispatched in a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II to investigate. Once Nazeri reached Tehran, he reported losing all instruments and communications, so they returned to base, reporting that his instruments came back once he did so.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Incident
Major Parviz Jafari, a squadron commander in the Imperial Iranian Air Force, along with First  Lieutenant  Jalal  Damirian as weapons officer, were dispatched in a second F-4 Phantom II to intercept the object. Jafari acquired radar lock on an object at a range of 27 nautical miles (≈ 50 KM. ), its size described as a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker. As he approached the light, which Jafari described as “flashing with intense red, green, orange and blue lights so bright that I was not able to see its body”, its communications system shut off.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Incident
As he attempted to fire an AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared guided missile, he said his equipment shut down and only returned to normal after his jet moved away from the object. Jafari said he was "startled by a round object which came out of the primary object and started coming straight toward me at a high rate of speed, almost as  if  it  were  a  missile", but as he attempted to fire "Suddenly, nothing was working. The weapons control panel was  out,  and  I  lost  all  the  instruments,  and  the  radio".


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Incident
When he could  report  to  the  tower control,  he was told to get back. As doing so, he looked to his left and saw "the primary, diamond-shaped thing up there, and another bright object came out of it and headed directly  toward  the  ground". Expecting an explosion that did not happen, he claimed "It seemed to slow down and land  gently  on  the  ground,  radiating  a  high  bright  light". The next day, Jafari and his backseat officer flew in a helicopter to look at where they thought the light hit the ground but nothing was found, with occupants of nearby houses only reporting hearing a loud noise and a bright flash of light during the night.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Stripped of details, a couple of F4 jets from the Iranian airforce were scrambled to investigate some sightings of lights in the sky. Reports vary, but at least one jet suffered grave electrical failures, tried to fire a missile at something and had something fired at it. A nearby jet airliner also suffered radio failure.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
According to U.S. journalist Philip J. Klass, it was likely the pilots initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, an explanation also cited by aerospace researcher James Oberg. Klass wrote that pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction likely accounted for the reported equipment failures.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
According to Klass, the Westinghouse technician at Shahrokhi airbase stated that only the first F-4 reported failing equipment, and that this F-4 was known for equipment failures with a long history of electrical outages, having been repaired only a month before the incident. Klass cites a McDonnell Douglas repair supervisor's opinion that the F-4's radar could have been in "manual track" mode, causing a wrong interpretation of the radar lock.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Bridgstock criticized UFOlogists reports as "not a reliable account of the Iran UFO incident" and summed up Klass' conclusions:


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Klass found that only one aircraft had suffered electrical malfunctions, not two. What is more, that plane had had a history of unexplained electrical faults, and the electrical workshop responsible for it was notorious for poor performance. In this context, a temporary electrical malfunction can hardly be characterised as mysterious. He also points out that the aircrews at the time were tired and rattled, and could have mistaken stars or meteors for UFOs and "missiles". In addition, Klass points out that radio faults on airliners are not unknown, and that is why they carry backup radio sets.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Regarding one pilot's report of "bright objects" that "came at him, and that shot straight down into the ground", American sceptic author Brian Dunning observes that 19 September, the day of the incident, was the height of two annual meteorite showers, the Gamma Piscids and the Southern Piscids and the tail of the Eta Draconids shower, so observation of falling objects or odd lights would not have been unusual. At the site where the falling light supposedly crashed, a beeping transponder from a C-141 aircraft was found according to investigating Col. Mooy.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Once we look at all the story's elements without the presumption of an alien spaceship, the only thing unusual about the Tehran 1976 UFO case is that planes were chasing celestial objects and had equipment failures. There have been many cases where planes had equipment failures, and there have been many cases where planes misidentified celestial objects. Once in a while, both will happen on the same flight.


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Analysis
Dunning criticized UFOlogists and UFO-themed television programs like Sightings for describing all the events related to the incident "from the context of a presumption that the light was a hostile and intelligently guided alien spacecraft".


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Gallery
Editorial published in the United States Air Force Security Services quarterly MIJI (Meaconing, Intrusion, Jamming, and Interference) newsletter that is "often waved by the UFOlogists as compelling evidence". According to Brian Dunning, "because this service requires a security clearance, their newsletter is protected as well. There is nothing especially interesting about the actual article; it's just a dramatized retelling of the same information in Col. Mooy's memo, offered in the newsletter as a curious editorial on the subject of jamming and interference."


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Gallery
Editorial from the US Air Force MIJI newsletter (page 1)


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Gallery
Editorial from the US Air Force MIJI newsletter (page 2)


1976 Tehran UFO incident, Gallery
Editorial from the US Air Force MIJI newsletter (page 3)


1976 Temple Owls football team
The 1976 Temple Owls football team was an American football team that represented Temple University as an independent during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. In its seventh season under head coach Wayne Hardin, the team compiled a 4–6 record and was outscored by a total of 216 to 196. The team played its home games at Veterans Stadium (three games) and Franklin Field (two games) in Philadelphia.


1976 Temple Owls football team
The team's statistical leaders included Pat Carey with 839 passing yards, Anthony Anderson with 803 rushing yards, and Ken Williams with 580 receiving yards and 36 points scored.


1976 Tennessee Volunteers football team
The 1976 Tennessee Volunteers football team (variously "Tennessee", "UT" or the "Vols") represented the University of Tennessee in the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. Playing as a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the team was led by head coach Bill Battle, in his seventh year, and played their home games at Neyland Stadium in Knoxville, Tennessee. They finished the season with a record of six wins and five losses (6–5 overall, 2–4 in the SEC). The Volunteers offense scored 237 points while the defense allowed 162 points.


1976 Texas A&M Aggies football team
The 1976 Texas A&M Aggies football team represented Texas A&M University during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season.


1976 Texas Longhorns football team
The 1976 Texas Longhorns football team represented the University of Texas during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. It was Darrell Royal's final year as head coach.


1976 Texas Longhorns football team, Season summary, vs. Oklahoma
President Gerald Ford walked out with both coaches to midfield for the pregame coin toss


1976 Texas Rangers season
The 1976 Texas Rangers season involved the Rangers finishing 4th in the American League West with a record of 76 wins and 86 losses.


1976 Texas Rangers season, Player stats, Batting, Starters by position
Note: Pos = Position; G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in


1976 Texas Rangers season, Player stats, Batting, Other batters
Note: G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in


1976 Texas Rangers season, Player stats, Pitching, Starting pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; IP = Innings pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; ERA = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts


1976 Texas Rangers season, Player stats, Pitching, Other pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; IP = Innings pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; ERA = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts


1976 Texas Rangers season, Player stats, Pitching, Relief pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; SV = Saves; ERA = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts


1976 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team
The 1976 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team represented Texas Tech during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. Texas Tech wins its first Southwest Conference championship (shared with Houston).


1976 Texas–Arlington Mavericks football team
The 1976 Texas–Arlington Mavericks football team was an American football team that represented  the University of Texas at Arlington in the Southland Conference during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. In their third year under head coach Harold Elliott, the team compiled a 5–6 record.


1976 Thai general election
Early general elections were held in Thailand on 4 April 1976 after the House of Representatives had been dissolved prematurely on 12 January. A total of 2,350 candidates representing 39 parties contested the election, although voter turnout was only 44.0%. The result was a victory for the Democrat Party, which won 114 of the 279 seats.


1976 Thailand Regional Games
The 10th Thailand National Games (Thai: กีฬาเขตแห่งประเทศไทย ครั้งที่ 10, also known as the 1976 National Games and the 1976 Interprovincial Games) were held in Udon Thani, Thailand from 4 to 10 December 1976, with matches in 14 sports and athletes from 10 regions.


1976 Thailand Regional Games, Emblem
The emblem of 1976 Thailand National Games was a red circle, with a royal crown on top, the emblem of Sports Authority of Thailand on the inside, and surrounded by the text


1976 Thailand Regional Games, Emblem
อสกท กีฬาเขตแห่งประเทศไทย ครั้งที่ ๑๐ อุดรธานี ๒๕๑๙SAT 10th Inter-Provincial Games, Udon Thani 1976


1976 Thailand Regional Games, Participating regions
The 10th Thailand National Games represented 10 regions from 71 provinces.


1976 Thailand Regional Games, Sports
The 1977 Thailand National Games featured 10 Olympic sports contested at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games, 1978 Asian Games and 1976 Summer Olympics. In addition, four non-Olympic sports was featured: badminton, sepak takraw, table tennis and tennis.


1976 The Citadel Bulldogs football team
The 1976 The Citadel Bulldogs football team represented The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina in the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. Bobby Ross served as head coach for the fourth season. The Bulldogs played as members of the Southern Conference and played home games at Johnson Hagood Stadium.


1976 The Hills state by-election
A by-election was held in the state electoral district of The Hills on 9 October 1976. The by-election was triggered by the resignation of Max Ruddock (Liberal).


1976 Thomas Cup
The 1976 Thomas Cup was the tenth edition of Thomas Cup, the world championship of men's international team badminton (its female counterpart is the Uber Cup). The final rounds contested by qualifying teams were held in Bangkok, Thailand in late May and early June. First played in 1948-1949, the Thomas Cup competition was held every three years after that until 1982 and has been held every two years since. For more details on the format of past and present Thomas Cup competition see Wikipedia's general article on the Thomas Cup.


1976 Thomas Cup
Indonesia won its sixth title after beating Malaysia in the final round.


1976 Thomas Cup, Teams
26 teams from 4 regions took part in the competition. As defending champion, Indonesia skipped the qualifications and played directly in the second round of the inter-zone ties (team matches), effectively the semifinals of the tournament. As host nation to the inter-zone phase of the tournament, Thailand was exempt from qualifications and played directly in the first round of the inter-zone ties.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
Denmark again prevailed in the European zone but only after two tough battles. In the zone semifinal against England. Flemming Delfs and Elo Hansen led the way to a 6–3 victory, as Svend Pri, recovering from injury, was kept out of the doubles. Englishman David Eddy's unbeaten record in Thomas Cup play for England dating from the 1969-1970 series was broken in the second set of doubles matches, but only after the outcome of the tie had been determined.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
In the zone final against Sweden, which had beaten West Germany comfortably, Denmark's slightly greater depth enabled it to survive 5–4 in the last match of the tie. Veteran singles star Sture Johnsson still excelled for Sweden, but its team now depended most on Thomas Kihlstrom, something of a late bloomer, but fast becoming one of the best all-around players in the world.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
Canada won the Pan American zone by defeating the USA and Mexico, both by 6–3 scores. Against the USA it swept the five singles matches to more than offset a doubles deficit. It was almost the reverse against Mexico, with Canada losing three of the five singles but sweeping the doubles. Notable in the tie between Canada and the USA was the creditable play of a bevy of ultra-veterans: Wayne Macdonnell (who won two singles matches), Channarong Ratanaseangsuang, and Raphi Kanchanaraphi, for Canada, all in their mid to late thirties, and 44-year-old Jim Poole for the U.S. In the Canada versus Mexico tie, Mexico's Roy Diaz Gonzalez, playing in his third Cup series at only 22, remained undefeated in Pan American zone singles


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
With Iran and Taiwan defaulting opening ties in the Australasian zone, New Zealand needed only to defeat Australia (9–0; though some matches were close) to advance to the inter-zone playoffs for the second time. It was the fifth campaign for New Zealand's Richard Purser whose Thomas Cup experience dated from the days when Australia had the upper hand between the two.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
The Asian zone, usually the most formidable one in the Thomas Cup draw, seemed to offer better odds to dark-horse contenders this time. Indonesia as defending champion was once again exempt from the qualifying rounds, as was 1973 zone winner Thailand as host nation to the inter-zone ties. The typically talented Malaysian and Japanese squads were each in something of an intergenerational transition. Malaysia's well known players of the late 1960s and early 1970s had all retired and Ippei Kojima was the last mainstay from Japan's highly competitive teams of 1967 and 1970.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
Nonetheless, Japan easily advanced over Hong Kong and South Korea in the eastern section of the draw. In the western section India relied on 20-year-old Prakash Padukone's wins in both of his singles and both of his doubles matches to narrowly defeat an improved Pakistan 5–4. In the next round, against a very young and green Malaysian team, three Padukone wins put India on the verge of victory at 4–1.


1976 Thomas Cup, Qualification (Intra-zone) summary
Malaysia, however, won all the remaining matches, the last when Padukone and Asif Parpia were beaten in three games by Cheah Hong Chong and Dominic Soong, to advance to the zone final. There the young Malaysians defeated Japan 6–3, thus helping to assuage the memory of Malaysia's collapse in the zone final against Thailand in 1973.


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
The inter-zone ties (team matches) were held in Bangkok, Thailand in late May and early June. 1973 runner-up Denmark and defending champion Indonesia received byes and awaited the winners of Malaysia versus New Zealand and Canada versus Thailand respectively. New Zealand's fate was sealed when it could not break through against the Malaysian singles lineup of Phua Ah Hua, Saw Swee Leong, and James Selvaraj, despite some competitive matches. New Zealand doubles victories, two of them after the tie had been decided, made the final score 6–3.


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
The Purser brothers, Bryan and older brother Richard both played well in defeat for the Kiwis. The contest between Canada and host Thailand was quite lopsided. Though the Canadians had replaced several of its Pan American zone team members with younger players, it had retained the veteran ex-Thais Raphi Kanchanaraphi and Channarong Ratanaseangsuang, two heroes of Thailand's run to the Thomas Cup final a full fifteen years earlier. The old Thais could not match the young Thai doubles pairs, though, in extending one match to three games, they performed as well as anyone else on their team. Canada's singles number one Jamie McKee could average only six points a game against Thailand's Bandid Jaiyen and Surapong Suharitdamrong. Only one of the singles matches was moderately close in a 9–0 Thai victory


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
The first inter-zone semifinal between Denmark and Malaysia was the shocker of the series. The Danes once again fielded a squad of "name" players (complete with three alternates), though a few were now on the downside of their careers. By contrast the Malaysian team consisted of relative unknowns, though three consecutive hard-fought ties had given them valuable experience. The redoubtable Svend Pri, now 31, led off for Denmark with a decisive straight games win over Phu Ah Hua.


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
In the next match, however, Flemming Delfs, less than a year away from capturing the World Singles Championship in the familiar Scandinavian climate, faltered in the heat and humidity after winning the first game against Saw Swee Leong. Those results set the pattern for the tie; Denmark could win matches that counted only when Pri was on the court. At 4–3 in favor of Malaysia Pri was finally unable to carry partner Steen Skovgaard to victory against Dominic Soong and Cheah Hong Chong. The jubilant young Malaysians had reached the Thomas Cup final against form, losing an anticlimactic final match to make the score 5–4.


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
The outcome of the other semifinal was never really in doubt. Though host Thailand had received a bye into the inter-zone matches, it had also received "the short straw" by being placed in the Indonesian half of the draw. The performance of the diminutive but gifted Bandid Jaiyen, however, did offer some balm for Thailand's wounded pride.


1976 Thomas Cup, Inter-zone playoffs, Second round
He had gained Thailand's only point against Indonesia in the previous Thomas Cup series, and did so again on the first night of play by fighting back from the brink of a straight games defeat to wear down powerhouse Iie Sumirat 15-5 in the third. Though Jaiyen played creditably on the second night against the iconic Rudy Hartono,  he was beaten at 11 and 7. Surapong Suharitdamrong, the Thai number two, could collect only eleven points in four games against Hartono and Sumirat. The one close doubles match came after Indonesia had already clinched the tie to play in its seventh Thomas Cup final in seven attempts.


1976 Thomas Cup, Final
In reaching the 1976 Thomas Cup final a young Malaysian team had done what vastly more experienced and accomplished Malaysian team members had failed to do in 1973. Their fine run, however, came to an abrupt end against juggernaut Indonesia in perhaps the most one-sided championship tie in Thomas Cup history. Replacing Sumirat in one of the top singles positions for Indonesia, rising star Liem Swie King weathered close first games against both Phua Ah Hua and Saw Swee Leong before slamming the door against both in the second game. Hartono was never threatened.


1976 Thomas Cup, Final
Malaysia's Dominic Soong and Cheah Hong Chong captured the first game against Tjun Tjun and Johan Wahjudi, but this was the extent of the Malaysian challenge. By a nine to zero final tally Indonesia retained the Thomas Cup. It was the first time that the championship round had ended in a shutout.


1976 Thunderbird Classic
The 1976 Thunderbird Classic, also known by its sponsored name Talley Industries Phoenix Thunderbird Women's Tournament,  was a women's singles tennis tournament played on outdoor hard courts at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona in the United States. The event was part of the 1976 WTA Tour. It was the sixth edition of the tournament and was held from October 4 through October 10, 1976. First-seeded Chris Evert won the singles title and earned $14,000 first-prize money.


1976 Thunderbird Classic, Finals, Doubles
Billie Jean King /  Betty Stöve defeated  Linky Boshoff /  Ilana Kloss 6–2, 6–1


1976 Thurrock by-election
The Thurrock by-election of 15 July 1976 was held after the death of Labour Member of Parliament (MP) Hugh Delargy. Labour held on to the seat in the by-election


1976 Thurrock by-election, Outcome
Reporting the result of the election, The Glasgow Herald argued that the Labour government had taken "another severe battering from the electorate" with the Labour majority falling by over 14,000 votes since the last general election. It also argued that "Labour voters in London dockland stayed away in droves". However it noted that for Prime Minister James Callaghan the most important thing would be that Oonagh McDonald's victory would "swell the Government's effective majority to three." Margaret Thatcher said the vote was "a massive vote of no confidence in the Government" and looked forward to the next by-election. By contrast the result was argued by The Glasgow Herald to auger "problems" for the Liberal leader David Steel and the newspaper suggested that the Government would be concerned at the size of the National Front's vote in a seat it had not previously fought.


1976 Tipperary Senior Hurling Championship
The 1976 Tipperary Senior Hurling Championship was the 86th staging of the Tipperary Senior Hurling Championship since its establishment by the Tipperary County Board in 1887.


1976 Tipperary Senior Hurling Championship
On 12 September 1976, Moneygall won the championship after a 1-09 to 2-05 defeat of Roscrea in the final at Semple Stadium. It was their second championship title overall and their second title in succession.


1976 Tirreno–Adriatico
The 1976 Tirreno–Adriatico was the 11th edition of the Tirreno–Adriatico cycle race and was held from 12 March to 16 March 1976. The race started in Santa Marinella and finished in San Benedetto del Tronto. The race was won by Roger De Vlaeminck of the Brooklyn team.


1976 Toledo Rockets football team
The 1976 Toledo Rockets football team was an American football team that represented the University of Toledo in the Mid-American Conference (MAC) during the 1976 NCAA Division I football season. In their sixth and final season under head coach Jack Murphy, the Rockets compiled a 3–8 record (2–6 against MAC opponents), finished in a tie for seventh place in the MAC, and were outscored by all opponents by a combined total of 232 to 185.


1976 Toledo Rockets football team
The team's statistical leaders included Jeff Hepinstall with 1,299 passing yards, Skip McCulley with 578 rushing yards, and Scott Resseguie with 530 receiving yards.


1976 Toray Sillook Open
The 1976 Toray Sillook Open  was a women's tennis tournament played on indoor carpet courts in Tokyo, Japan that was a non-tour event, independent of the 1976 WTA Tour. It was the fourth edition of the tournament and was held from 28 September through 2 October, 1976. The first round was played at the Nichi Dai University Auditorium while the semifinals and final were held at the Yoyogi National Gymnasium. The singles event was the only competition held and was won by unseeded Betty Stöve who earned $15,000 first-prize money.


1976 Torneo Descentralizado
The 1976 Torneo Descentralizado, the top category of Peruvian football, was played by 16 teams. The national champion was Unión Huaral.


1976 Torneo Godó
The 1976 Torneo Godó or Trofeo Conde de Godó was a men's tennis tournament that took place on outdoor clay courts in Barcelona, Spain. It was the 24th edition of the Torneo Godó tournament and was part of the Three Star category of the 1976 Grand Prix circuit. It was held from 18 October through 24 October 1976. Fourth-seeded Manuel Orantes won the singles title.


1976 Torneo Godó, Finals, Singles
Manuel Orantes defeated  Eddie Dibbs 6–1, 2–6, 2–6, 7–5, 6–4


1976 Torneo Godó, Finals, Doubles
Brian Gottfried /  Raúl Ramírez defeated  Bob Hewitt /  Frew McMillan 7–6, 6–4


1976 Torneo di Viareggio
The 1976 winners of the Torneo di Viareggio (in English, the Viareggio Tournament, officially the Viareggio Cup World Football Tournament Coppa Carnevale), the annual youth football tournament held in Viareggio, Tuscany, are listed below.


1976 Torneo di Viareggio, Format
The 16 teams are seeded in 4 groups. Each team from a group meets the others in a single tie. The winner of each group progress to the final knockout stage.


1976 Toronto Argonauts season
The 1976 Toronto Argonauts finished in fourth place in the Eastern Conference with a 7–8–1 record and failed to make the playoffs.


1976 Toronto International Film Festival
The 1st Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) took place at Windsor Arms Hotel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada between October 18 and October 24, 1976. Initially its name was Festival of Festivals, which remained until 1994 after which it became the Toronto International Film Festival. It showcased 127 feature films from 30 different countries with the audience of 35,000. It featured some of the best films from film festivals around the world. Most of the Hollywood studios later withdrew their submissions citing reason that Toronto audiences would be too parochial for their films. Cousin Cousine, a French film directed by Jean-Charles Tacchella was selected as the opening film and screened at Ontario Place Cinesphere and Queen of the Gypsies was the closing film. German cinema was focused upon, with films from German directors such as Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Wim Wenders and Werner Herzog.


1976 Toronto International Film Festival
Producer Dino De Laurentiis, screened a 90-second preview of his then-unreleased King Kong at the festival.


1976 Toronto International Film Festival, Programme, Canadian Cinema
The Canadian Cinema program had been slated to include Don Owen's film Partners, but it was pulled from the festival at the last minute after a dispute with the Ontario Censor Board about a brief sex scene in the film.


1976 Toronto municipal election
The Toronto municipal election of 1976 was held on December 6, 1976 in Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Mayors, city councillors and school board trustees were elected in the municipalities of Toronto, York, East York, North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough.


1976 Toronto municipal election
Toronto Mayor David Crombie and North York Mayor Mel Lastman were both re-elected without serious opposition.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Toronto, Mayoral race
As in the 1974 election incumbent David Crombie faced no real opposition in his bid for reelection.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Toronto, City council
City council was mostly stable, the only notable upset was the defeat of long serving Old Guard member William Boytchuk by NDPer David White in Ward 1. The conservative membership remained stable as retiring moderate NDPer Reid Scott was replaced by conservative Tom Wardle Jr..


1976 Toronto municipal election, Toronto, City council
Two aldermen were elected per Ward. The alderman with the most votes was declared Senior Alderman and sat on both Toronto City Council and Metro Council.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Toronto, Changes
Mayor David Crombie resigned on August 31, 1978 to contest a Federal by-election for Rosedale on October 16, 1978. On September 1, 1978 City Council met to appoint a new Mayor. The right-wingers stood Ward 8 Alderman Fred Beavis while the left-wingers stood Ward 11 Alderman Anne Johnston. When the vote was held the two candidates were tied with 11 votes each so in accordance with the Municipal Act put both names into a hat, and the name picked out of the hat would officially be pronounced interim mayor. Fred Beavis was the name chosen and he became mayor. Thomas Clifford now became Ward 8's sole Alderman and was appointed Metro Councillor on September 11.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Metro boroughs, East York
Results from the borough of East York. Two aldermen were elected to each ward.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Metro boroughs, Etobicoke
Results from Etobicoke. Four members were elected to the Board of Control. Two aldermen were elected to each ward.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Metro boroughs, North York
Lastman is re-elected defeating a challenge by Controller William Sutherland


1976 Toronto municipal election, Metro boroughs, Scarborough
Results from the Borough of Scarborough. Four members were elected to the Board of Control. One alderman was elected to each ward.


1976 Toronto municipal election, Metro boroughs, York
Results from the borough of York. Two members were elected to the Board of Control. One alderman was elected to each ward.


1976 Tour de France
The 1976 Tour de France was the 63rd edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours. It took between 24 June and 18 July, with 22 stages covering a distance of 4,017 km (2,496 mi). It was won by mountain specialist Lucien Van Impe in a battle with the previous winner Bernard Thevenet and Joop Zoetemelk.


1976 Tour de France
Zoetemelk won three high mountain stages including Alpe d'Huez and Puy de Dome but this Tour became known for when the young Directeur Sportif of Van Impe, Cyrille Guimard, threatened to run Van Impe off the road with the Team Car if he didn't attack. Van Impe then attacked and won the Tour.


1976 Tour de France
The revelation of the Tour however was Freddy Maertens, who in his first Tour won eight stages and the points classification, and led the general classification for ten days.


1976 Tour de France
Five-time winner Eddy Merckx did not join in the 1976 Tour de France because he was injured. 1975 winner Bernard Thévenet left the race in the 19th stage, but at that point it was already clear that Van Impe would win the race.


1976 Tour de France
The mountains classification was won by Giancarlo Bellini with 170 points, only one point ahead of Lucien Van Impe. The young rider classification was won by Enrique Martínez Heredia. Heredia had already won the Tour de l'Avenir in 1974, but never broke through after this win.


1976 Tour de France, Teams
The 1976 Tour started with 13 teams, each sent 10 cyclists, a total of 130.


1976 Tour de France, Pre-race favourites
Eddy Merckx, who already had won the Tour de France five times, had troubles to find his form in 1976, and suffered from saddle sores. He decided not to enter the 1976 Tour de France. The main favourite for the victory was now Joop Zoetemelk, who had never finished worse than fifth place in the Tour de France. The winner of the previous Tour, Bernard Thévenet, had a good spring season, winning the Dauphiné Libéré. The other former winner that was still racing, Luis Ocaña, had come second in the 1976 Vuelta a España, and was hoping to win again. Also reigning world champion Hennie Kuiper was considered a pre-race favourite.


1976 Tour de France, Pre-race favourites
Not considered a favorite by any means was the 40 year old 'eternal second' Raymond Poulidor, who was riding in his final Tour. While he finished a good distance behind Van Impe and Zoetemelk he surprised the rest of the field by finishing on the podium in 3rd place.


1976 Tour de France, Route and stages
The 1976 Tour de France started on 24 June, and had two rest days, the first in Divonne-les-Bains the second at Le Barcarès. The 1976 Tour de France was divided into 22 stages and one prologue. Of the 22 stages, three were split stages: stages 5 and 22 were split into two half stages, and stage 18 was split into three smaller stages. The highest point of elevation in the race was 2,115 m (6,939 ft) at the summit of the Col du Tourmalet mountain pass on stage 15.


1976 Tour de France, Route and stages
Stage 18a was originally scheduled to be 47 km longer, but after the 17th stage, the Tour direction saw that cyclists were exhausted, and shortened the stage.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
The prologue was won by Freddy Maertens by 0:17 over the 2nd place rider. Between 1967 and 2012 most Tour's had a prologue, which is a short individual time trial less than 10 km, and this victory by Maertens was the largest margin of victory in Tour history. By comparison Merckx's largest prologue victory was only 0:11, yet is still the 3rd largest of all time.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
The Directeur Sportif for the Flandria team was Guillaume “Lomme” Driessens, a man who knew what it took to win the Tour de France having directed Merckx; and he was hesitant about allowing his young potential star starting a Tour this early in his career, but he was overridden by the team owner Pol Claeys and Maertens was added to the start list.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
He followed his prologue victory with another victory in stage 1, and during stage 2 he once again attempted to work his way to the front of the pack to fight for the win where he, along with everybody else, was beaten to the finish line by Giovanni Battaglin who took the victory by a full ten seconds. Stage 3 was another ITT, a 37 km ride around a beach resort along the English Channel known as Le Touquet Paris Plage.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
Again it was Maertens stealing all of the headlines handily beating the three favorites, as well as the time trial specialists by a considerable margin of over two minutes. In fact, the 2nd place rider at +1:37 behind was neither a favorite nor a specialist but rather his best friend within the peloton, and another young Belgian in Michel Pollentier, who shared the exact same birthday as Maertens, but was one year older. Another up and coming rider who performed well during the time trial was the Dutchman and defending World Champion Hennie Kuiper who finished 2:57 behind Maertens, but still fared better than Thevenet, Van Impe and Zoetemelk.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
Stage 4 was won by Kuiper, who beat Eric Loder in a sprint as the two of them finished nine seconds ahead of Piero Gavazzi, Guy Sibille and Gerard Vianen. Stage 5A was a short team time trial won by the TI-Raleigh squad who was beginning to evolve into one of the strongest time-trialling teams the Tour would ever know as there was no major changes to the overall situation. Stage 5B was yet another flat stage where the winner was able to gain about a ten second advantage over the pursuing riders who had gotten ahead of the peloton.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
Guy Sibille had found a way to get up front again, but again he came up short, this time to Miguel-Maria Lasa who won the day. During stage 6 from Bastogne to Nancy, Italian rider Aldo Parecchini escaped and won on a solo breakaway where he finished four and a half minutes ahead of the main field.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The First Week
Stage 7 was an intermediate hilly stage through the Vosges including the Grand Ballon that went from Bastogne to Mulhouse and ended with a bunch sprint velodrome finish where Piero Gavazzi and Jacques Esclassan were beat to the line by Maertens who had taken his fourth stage win of the first week.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
Stage 8 was another intermediate hilly stage through the Jura Mountains and was a repeat of the podium places from the previous day where yet again it was Gavazzi, Esclassan and Maertens who took the top places, except this time Esclassan got the win. Going into the first rest day the overall situation had Maertens in the Maillot Jaune by 2:04 over Pollentier, 3:16 over Kuiper, 3:23 over Jean-Pierre Danguillaume and 3:31 over Raymond Poulidor.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
The contenders for the overall victory were thought to be Bernard Thévenet, Joop Zoetemelk and Lucien Van Impe, but all of them were about 4:00 off the lead.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
Indeed they were waiting for the mountains to start their battle as the 1976 Tour was designed to be especially grueling with eight high mountain stages including three consecutive high mountain stages in the Alps, followed by a rest day and then four consecutive high mountain stages in the Pyrenees making for seven straight mountain stages which would absolutely devastate the peloton leaving very few riders, and among them only the riders who excelled in climbing, in contention for the win by the time the final time trial came around in stage 17, followed by one last high mountain stage atop Puy de Dome in stage 20.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
The first of these mountain stages finished atop a mountain resort known as Alpe d’Huez. None of the riders in the Tour had ever ridden this stage during the Tour as it had not been included since the 1952 Tour de France when the owner of a hotel in town brought a box of money to Tour organizers and asked them to bring the Grande Boucle to his mountain. History repeated itself to get the Tour to return to the Alpine resort but history would not repeat itself by waiting another quarter century to return to it, rather the legend of Alpe d’Huez was born.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
By this point in the Tour many in the press were stunned by the commanding performance of Maertens, to the point that there was speculation among them that he could win the Tour. Even five time Tour champion Jacques Anquetil now thought he could do exactly what his countryman Eddy Merckx had done and win the title in his Tour debut.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
It was because of stages like this that his Directeur Sportif Lomme Driessens felt nervous about including the young rider in the Tour because a disastrous stage in the high mountains can have a devastating effect on the psyche of a young rider. Maertens felt he was ready for this however, as he and his friend Michel Pollentier had ridden Alpe d'Huez twenty times during the off-season to be sure he had mastered every one of the twenty-one hairpin turns.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
The Directeur Sportif for Van Impe was the young retired rider Cyrille Guimard, and Guimard together with his team captain Robert Mintkiewicz had suggested to Van Impe that he attacked right at the base of Alpe d’Huez and this is exactly what he intended to do. In fact, early in the stage Van Impe rode up alongside Maertens, smiled wryly, and told him he was going to attack at the foot of the Alpe. Maertens replied with a straight face saying nothing more than “I'm ready”, because he knew that he was.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
The boredom within the peloton of the early morning riding through the valley was broken up when Gerben Karstens scooped up a traffic cone off the side of the road and put it on his head like a hat as he continued riding along. Loud cheers of laughter and approval rang out across the peloton, but race officials were not nearly as amused as before long he was spotted and fined 175 Francs for “making ridiculous jokes” prompting the Dutchman to remove his new hat and toss it to some fans standing alongside the road.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
Before long the ridiculous jokes gave way to the serious attacks as a group of about forty riders made it over the first climb in good order, including the three favorites as well as the young riders of Kuiper, Pollentier and Maertens. Despite the advice from his directeur and team captain, Van Impe joined an early attack made by Italian riders Fausto Bertoglio and Marcello Bergamo to both test the waters, and see if he couldn't get away from the rest of the elite riders. Before long the threesome was reeled back by the group lead by Zoetemelk and Thevenet.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
By the time the race reached the foot of Alpe d’Huez French rider Raymond Delisle launched the first attack and from there riders began being dropped left and right, including Kuiper, Maertens and Pollentier. Zoetemelk and Van Impe then relentlessly attack one another over and over again until the two of them were the only two riders remaining. Neither Thevenet nor Poulidor could match the two riders from the Low Countries as they were both dropped within a group of six riders.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
Spaniard Francisco Galdos was the final rider to stay in contact but in the end Van Impe and Zoetemelk were alone heading for the finish line where Zoetemelk finally pulled away to take the stage win. At the end of the day, Van Impe put on the yellow jersey for the first time in his career, Zoetemelk rose all the way to 2nd place less than ten seconds behind Van Impe and while Maertens did lose considerable time, he still managed to hold on to 3rd place at 0:54 back.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
The following day in stage 10 it was another three grueling climbs including a mountaintop finish at Montgenèvre. Yet again the attacks came often and were entirely relentless as the peloton was devastated for the 2nd day in a row. Any and all ideas Maertens had of winning the Tour were dispatched as he just could not stay with the elite climbers for a second day in a row.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
His teammate Pollentier however, rode strongly and was within the final group of elite riders on the final climb, but he and Bergamo began to crack as Delisle, Poulidor, Kuiper, Galdos, Zoetemelk, Van Impe and Thevenet rode on. In the end it was Van Impe, Zoetemelk and Thevenet riding together as the finish line approached where Zoetemelk was able to pull away from both of them to claim his 2nd stage win in a row.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
In the overall situation Van Impe and Zoetemelk had separated themselves from the rest of the field, but were only separated from one another by 0:07. In 3rd place was Poulidor at +1:36, in 4th was defending champ Thevenet at +1:48, in 5th was Galdos at +2:04 with Bertoglio just one second behind him as Pollentier, Kuiper, Delisle and José Martins rounded out the top 10 with each rider more than +4:00.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Return to Alpe d’Huez
Stage 11 was stunning because of the dominating solo attack made by José-Luis Viejo, who finished 22:50 ahead of 2nd place Gerben Karstens and 23:07 ahead of the main field lead in by 3rd place Freddy Maertens. Viejo was not a threat to the overall leaders so going into the 2nd rest day there were no major changes atop the general classification, but his stage victory was remarkable as it was the biggest winning margin in post-World War II history. José Viejo won the stage, 22 minutes and 50 seconds ahead of the next cyclist.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
In stage 12 two days later, there was another solo attack that did have ramifications for the general classification. Raymond Delisle went on the offensive and while Delisle was not considered a threat for overall victory, he was just over four minutes behind the overall lead so Van Impe wondered if he should give chase. Guimard instructed him to stand fast and keep Zoetemelk marked as he felt Zoetemelk was the only rider who posed a threat to his chances at victory.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
By the end of the day however, Delisle had surprised the entire field by staying away, and building a gap of 4:59 over Antonio Menendez by the time he crossed the finish line atop the Pyrenees 2000 resort. By the time Zoetemelk crossed the line with the same time as Viejo he was 6:57 behind the stage winner as Van Impe and the other favorites crossed one second later meaning for the 3rd stage in a row Zoetemelk had taken one second from Van Impe, but now both of them trailed the new race leader Raymond Delisle by nearly 3:00.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
In stage 13 the contenders all stayed together and a group of seven riders who survived all of the climbs fought it out for the stage win. Regis Ovion initially won the stage, ahead of Willy Teirlinck and Wladimiro Panizza but Ovion failed a drug test so Tierlinck and Panizza were promoted to 1st and 2nd place while 3rd place was left vacated with Ovion left off the back of the standings to fight again another day.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Stage 14 included the Col de Mente, the Portillon, Peyresourde, a summit finish at St.-Lary-Soulon and would change the Tour dramatically as by the end of the day nearly no one would be within ten minutes of the Yellow Jersey.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
It started off no different from any other day in the mountains with the breakaway hopefuls and KOM hunters attacking the early climbs hoping to stay away or going for points but before long there was a group of five formidable riders in an escape that caught the attention of Guimard for one reason or another, possibly because it included Luis Ocana.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Ocana was about ten minutes behind Van Impe, a considerable distance, but Ocana was a very strong rider and due to his performance earlier in the season was seen as once again being a potential contender for the Tour.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
This in conjunction with the facts that at the time it was still burned in everyone’s mind what Ocana had done to essentially win the 1971 Tour, and the last time Ocana had ridden a stage that included the Col de Mente, during the 1973 Tour de France, he dropped every rider in the field and won the stage by several minutes over everyone other than Zoetemelk.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Whatever Guimard’s reasons, he wanted Van Impe to join in this attack which also included other very strong climbers in the Giro contender Walter Riccomi and Spanish climbing specialist Pedro Torres, but this obviously was not part of the pre-planned strategy and on the surface seemed unnecessarily risky, as Van Impe was reluctant to do so when Guimard gave him the order.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Guimard followed his gut and became animated, threatening to hit him with the team car if he didn't attack and after the discussion was over Van Impe was on his way to bridging the gap as Zoetemelk, Delisle, Poulidor and the defending champ watched without reacting, either feeling unable to survive a long range attack, or in the case of Zoetemelk not feeling the breakaway would survive.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
When Van Impe joined the breakaway they continued working together and their gap over the fast depleting peloton gradually increased. Ocana had no problem working together with Van Impe as Ocana and Zoetemelk were vicious rivals for a number of reasons and the two of them had also been involved in crashes in which both riders were seriously injured and nearly killed, leaving the race in a helicopter or an ambulance during a 1971 Tour crash, and a 1974 Midi-Libre crash.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Being the 1970s riders and team leaders on the road did not have access to the modern real-time information regarding time gaps and by the time Zoetemelk learned that the breakaway Van Impe was about to join was working, continuing to gain time, and looked as though it might get away if he didn't react immediately, it was too late. The Peugeot team of Delisle did not defend the yellow jersey as Zoetemelk had anticipated and this also contributed to his hesitation.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Once he realized Delisle was not going to pursue Van Impe he knew his pursuit would be a solo attack as nobody else, including Delisle, Poulidor, nor Thevenet, could go with him. Zoetemelk rode on his own in pursuit, furiously giving chase, kilometer after kilometer and was able to come within about a minute of catching Van Impe, but as Van Impe arrived within the breakaway group made up of incredibly strong climbers, they all began working together taking turns doing the heavy work at the front causing the gap back to Zoetemelk to increase.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Zoetemelk was one of the best riders of his generation but there was simply no way he could chase down so many world class riders all working together. By the time he reached the final climb it was a certainty he would not be able to catch Van Impe, who later in the stage had attacked the breakaway he was in and was riding on solo towards both the stage victory, and since Delisle had cracked, the Yellow Jersey.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Zoetemelk was going faster than any other rider up the final climb as he managed to catch and drop all of the other breakaway riders including Torres, Ocana and Riccomi, but Van Impe’s attack had paid off, and by the time Zoetemelk hit the finish line he was more than three minutes behind the Belgian. Delisle had fallen to 3rd at 9:27, Riccomi had jumped to 4th at 10:22 as the rest of the new top 10 including Poulidor, Galdos, Bertoglio, Freddy Maertens, José Pesarrodona and Luis Ocana were beyond eleven minutes.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Pyrenees
Stage 15 was the final day in the Pyrenees and included three climbs often included in the Tour in the Col d’Aspin, the Col du Tourmalet and the Col d’Aubisque. Zoetemelk was the only rider with a realistic chance of overtaking Van Impe but the two of them would finish together 5:44 behind the winner Panizza and 2:16 behind the surviving breakaway riders including Enrico Paolini, Arnaldo Caverzasi, Donato Giuliani, Antonio Menendez, Georges Talbourdet, Carlos Melero, José Martins and Michel Pollentier who climbed back up to 7th place overall by surviving within this breakaway.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
Stage 16 was a return to the flatlands where Pollentier continued his strong riding by beating 2nd place Maertens, 3rd place Karstens and the rest of the peloton to the line by 0:16. Stage 17 was the final long individual time trial and would decide whether or not Van Impe would put a stranglehold on his 1st place position, or if Zoetemelk would cut into his lead and set up a final battle on the upcoming Puy de Dome. The stage was won by time trial specialist Ferdi Bracke by 0:08 over Norwegian time trial specialist Knut Knudsen.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
In the earlier time trial Maertens had beaten Bracke by more than two minutes, and while this time he finished in 3rd place 0:11 back, Maertens had shown he had the ability to survive the high mountains and still perform well in the final week of the Tour. The biggest battle of the day however, was won by Van Impe who finished in 4th place 0:51 behind Bracke, but far more importantly more than a minute ahead of Zoetemelk, meaning he now led the Dutchman by 4:33.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
This was going to be a tall order for Zoetemelk on Puy de Dome, but the final mountain stage in stage 20 was going to be the last chance for significant changes in the general classification. Stage 18 was actually three different stages, split into sections A, B, and C as the Tour moved from the historical city of Auch in the Pyrenean foothills all the way to the Atlantic coast and the equally historical city of Bordeaux.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
18A was won by Freddy Maertens who put on a show in this stage as he outsprinted Gerben Karstens for the win, then in 18B he outsprinted the Frenchman Jacques Esclassan to take the win, but in stage 18C he was finally beaten and finished 2nd in the sprint, to Gerben Karstens. Guy Sibille had been involved in these closely contested stages as well, and was given the Combativity Award for all three stages for his efforts. Stage 19 would not have a bunch sprint finish but was decided by a successful group of escapees who managed to beat the peloton to the line by just over seven minutes or so as Hubert Mathis claimed the stage win by 0:07 over the other eight breakaway riders.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
Stage 20 was the final chance for Zoetemelk to attack Van Impe, and attack Van Impe he did. Throughout the Tour the excessive pace set by Zoetemelk and Van Impe as they attacked one another would have caused as many as half the riders to be thrown out of the Tour for finishing outside the cut-off time limit, had the rules not been changed by officials to allow most of them to remain in the race, and this stage would be more of the same.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
Zoetemelk put the pressure on Van Impe and very much like during the first major mountain stage on Alp d’Huez it was Zoetemelk and Van Impe leaving everyone else behind as Francisco Galdos was once again the last rider to lose contact with them. For the third time in the Tour Zoetemelk was able to ride away from Van Impe and claim his 3rd high mountain stage win of the Tour, but he was not able to crack Van Impe as he only won the day by 0:12 seconds, essentially meaning that Van Impe had won the Tour.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
Stage 21 was a return to the flatlands and was decided in a bunch finish in which Maertens continued his dominance by claiming his 7th stage win. Stage 22 was a split stage, and the final day of the race. First up in stage 22A was a brief 6 km time trial around the Champs Elysees, and then for the 2nd year in a row the Tour would end with a circuit finish around the Champs Elysees, beginning to build a tradition which would endure up to the present day.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
The only thing to be decided during the time trial was the 3rd and final podium position as Poulidor and Delisle had been tied for 3rd place since Puy de Dome with both of them 12:15 behind Van Impe, and the Italian rider Riccomi just a few seconds behind the two of them. Delisle finished in 6th place while Poulidor tied for 2nd place with Zoetemelk meaning Poulidor would make the podium for the 8th time in his brilliant career, an impressive feat considering he was 40 years old. Winning the stage was Freddy Maertens, tying him with Charles Pelissier and Eddy Merckx, who did so twice, as the only riders in Tour history to win eight stages in a single tour. This was also the 3rd time in this Tour that Maertens had won back to back stages.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
This meant that Maertens would be able to break this record if he were able to claim victory on the final stage. He found himself in good position in the front of the pack, but he came up just short having to settle for 2nd place as Gerben Karstens put the finishing touch on what, for him, had been a very successful Tour.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, The Final Week
Enrique Martínez Heredia won the young rider classification, the intermediate sprints classification went to Van Impe’s team captain Robert Mintkiewicz, the overall combativity award went to Raymond Delisle and the victory in the points classification went handily to Freddy Maertens. Van Impe normally competed for the mountains classification and he nearly won it yet again as he and Giancarlo Bellini went back and forth for the lead seven different times but in the end Bellini won the award by a single point 170 to Van Impe’s 169. On the podium in 3rd place was Raymond Poulidor, in 2nd place was Joop Zoetemelk as Lucien Van Impe claimed the final yellow jersey as winner of the general classification of the 1976 Tour de France.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
Lucien Van Impe - this would be the only Tour de France win of his career, although by the time he would retire he won six King of the Mountain awards, tying him the great Federico Bahamontes for the most of all time until the EPO era of the 1990s and 2000s. He was in contention of winning the 1977 edition leading the race on Alp d’Huez when, perhaps ironically, he was hit by a car, and had to wait several minutes for a new bike as the riders who were pursuing him continued right on by.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
Bernard Thevenet - would abandon this Tour during the 19th stage at no point ever being a legitimate threat to defend his title from the previous year. He would go on to win the following year however, in one of the closest two way battles in Tour history between himself and Hennie Kuiper.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
Joop Zoetemelk - 1976 would be the 3rd time that Zoetemelk finished in 2nd place. He had the misfortune of the beginning of his career coincide with five time champ Eddy Merckx, and the end of his career collide with five time champ Bernard Hinault. Zoetemelk would wear the Maillot Jaune for four days in the 3rd week of the 1978 Tour, and six days in the 2nd week of the 1979 edition, only to lose it late in the Tour to Hinault on both occasions.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
He would win the 1980 Tour de France by his performance midway through the Tour convincing Hinault he would not have survived the mountain stages against him, as an injured Hinault chose to abandon while wearing the Yellow Jersey while just 0:21 ahead of Zoetemelk. Zoetemelk would finish 2nd for a sixth time in 1982, once again to Bernard Hinault.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
Freddy Maertens - would follow his Tour performance by winning the 1976 World Championship, then the 1977 Vuelta a Espana in an absolutely dominant fashion collecting a monumental 13 stage wins. By 1979 and 1980 however, Maertens had fallen from grace and was basically irrelevant within the cycling world. In fact, in May 1979 Maertens traveled to the United States to find a doctor from outside mainland Europe who could attest that Maertens did not have a drug problem as the media reported he did.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Aftermath
The plane Maertens was on landed in New York, but crashed later that day while leaving Chicago killing all 273 people on board resulting in the deadliest crash in American history. Maertens career seemed to be a tragic and sad tale, but in 1981 he staged one of the greatest comebacks in cycling history by winning his 3rd Green Jersey, winning another five stages, and capped it all off with a stunning victory in the World Championship.


1976 Tour de France, Race overview, Doping
During the Tour de France, 110 doping tests were taken. Three cyclists tested positive. After the third stage, Jesús Manzaneque tested positive for doping. Manzaneque received a 10-minute penalty in the general classification and was suspended for one month. After the 13th stage, winner Régis Ovion failed the doping test. He was taken out of the results, and Teirlinck and Panizza, who originally were second and third, gained one place. In the official classification, the other cyclists were not upgraded, so the third place remains unoccupied. Bernard Labourdette was caught during the doping test, when he tried to cheat.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
There were several classifications in the 1976 Tour de France, four of them awarding jerseys to their leaders. The most important was the general classification, calculated by adding each cyclist's finishing times on each stage. The cyclist with the least accumulated time was the race leader, identified by the yellow jersey; the winner of this classification is considered the winner of the Tour.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
Additionally, there was a points classification, where cyclists got points for finishing among the best in a stage finish, or in intermediate sprints. The cyclist with the most points lead the classification, and was identified with a green jersey. The calculation was changed, to make the competition more accessible for the non-sprinters. There were five types of stages, with respect to how many points could be earned:


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
There was also a mountains classification. The organisation had categorised some climbs as either first, second, third, or fourth-category; points for this classification were won by the first cyclists that reached the top of these climbs first, with more points available for the higher-categorised climbs. The cyclist with the most points lead the classification, and wore a white jersey with red polka dots.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
Another classification was the young rider classification. This was decided the same way as the general classification, but only neo-professionals were eligible, and the leader wore a jersey.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
The fifth individual classification was the intermediate sprints classification. This classification had similar rules as the points classification, but only points were awarded on intermediate sprints. In 1976, this classification had no associated jersey.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
For the team classification, the times of the best three cyclists per team on each stage were added; the leading team was the team with the lowest total time. The riders in the team that led this classification were identified by yellow caps. There was also a team points classification. Cyclists received points according to their finishing position on each stage, with the first rider receiving one point. The first three finishers of each team had their points combined, and the team with the fewest points led the classification. The riders of the team leading this classification wore green caps.


1976 Tour de France, Classification leadership and minor prizes
In addition, there was a combativity award, in which a jury composed of journalists gave points after certain stages to the cyclist they considered most combative. The split stages each had a combined winner. At the conclusion of the Tour, Raymond Delisle won the overall super-combativity award, also decided by journalists. The Souvenir Henri Desgrange was given in honour of Tour founder Henri Desgrange to the first rider to pass the summit of the Col du Lautaret on stage 10. This prize was won by Luciano Conati.


1976 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 12
The 1976 Tour de France was the 63rd edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours. The Tour began in Saint-Jean-de-Monts with a prologue individual time trial on 24 June, and Stage 12 occurred on 8 July with a mountainous stage to Pyrénées 2000. The race finished in Paris on 18 July.


1976 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 12, Prologue
24 June 1976 - Saint-Jean-de-Monts to Saint-Jean-de-Monts, 8 km (5.0 mi) (ITT)


1976 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 12, Stage 1
25 June 1976 - Saint-Jean-de-Monts to Angers, 173 km (107 mi)


1976 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 12, Stage 2
26 June 1976 - Angers to Caen, 237 km (147 mi)