30 for 30 - Slaying the Badger

[manafana]

have it recorded was on in the uk this week, nice to see cycling which really has so many rich stories get featured on probably the best series for sports docs

 

[mewmewmew13]

any other showings. I missed it and couldn't find it on the box second time around. my cox menu gives no details of any 30/30 show.

didja see RR's link to it on youtube earlier here?
if you can't see it anymore I have it downloaded and can send you link..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo&sns=tw

thank RR for the link!

 

[Granville57]

I just heard about this video. Here is what I found at http://slayingthebadger.com/the-film/
Q: Where can I see the film in the U.S., Canada, the U.K.?
A: ESPN will broadcast the Slaying the Badger film on Tuesday, July 22nd at 8pm ET. ESPN has not yet released its plans for the UK or Canada.
Q: How can I request a screening of the film?
A: Unfortunately, you can’t. ESPN has told us that they are “unable to accommodate any further screenings at this time.” We’re not sure why, but that’s what they’ve been telling us since June 30.
Q: Is the DVD available yet and where can I buy it?
A: The Slaying the Badger film DVD will be available in September on Amazon.com. On July 23rd, the film will be available on Amazon Streaming.

It's also available for download through iTunes.

 

[Tom T.]

Was that a Heineken Hinault was drinking during the famous interview after Alpe d'Heuz?

 

[ggusta]

Was that a Heineken Hinault was drinking during the famous interview after Alpe d'Heuz?

It appeared to be.

 

[kurtinsc]

Thanks for the link.

Lemond's 1989 Tour was my introduction to cycling as a kid. Probably the only reason I'm a fan... if it had been a more "typical" tour I'm not sure I would have been hooked like I was.

It was much later that I learned about the details of the '86 tour. Watching things like this make you miss the way the sport was contested back in those days.

Guys like Hinault, Fignon and Lemond who competed at such a wide variety of races and would actually try to win. Hinault was crazy with what he won, but it's not like the other GC guys in the era that ended with the exit of Lemond and Fignon weren't in those races. Lemond won worlds, had podiums in LBL, Lombardia and MSR and was 4th in Roubaix. Fignon won some MSR's and had similar close calls in other big 1-day races.

Now, you might get a GC guy who puts up a result now and then in LFW or LBL or perhaps Lombardia... but MSR or RVV or PR? Not happening. Lemond really was at the end of a golden age I think.

 

[Oldman]

Thanks for the link.

Lemond's 1989 Tour was my introduction to cycling as a kid. Probably the only reason I'm a fan... if it had been a more "typical" tour I'm not sure I would have been hooked like I was.

It was much later that I learned about the details of the '86 tour. Watching things like this make you miss the way the sport was contested back in those days.

Guys like Hinault, Fignon and Lemond who competed at such a wide variety of races and would actually try to win. Hinault was crazy with what he won, but it's not like the other GC guys in the era that ended with the exit of Lemond and Fignon weren't in those races. Lemond won worlds, had podiums in LBL, Lombardia and MSR and was 4th in Roubaix. Fignon won some MSR's and had similar close calls in other big 1-day races.

Now, you might get a GC guy who puts up a result now and then in LFW or LBL or perhaps Lombardia... but MSR or RVV or PR? Not happening. Lemond really was at the end of a golden age I think.

The nature of sponsorship has something to do with that. Emphasis on the Tour contributed to the specialization for training.
You only need to look at the physical difference in riders from both eras to see the results: much thinner, vulnerable climbing physiques seem necessary to win the current GTs. The "old" era riders were expected to represent their teams in all types of events and their form allowed for it. That's why I posed the comparative question about Lemond & Hinault's potential to adapt and challenge the current crop of GT competitors.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

The way I see it, Hinault just wanted to stir **** up because it amused him. Look at the way he's grinning throughout the interview. What a terrifying opponent to have in a race, no wonder he's got such a huge palmares.

At one point in '86, Hinault became worried about losing 2nd place to Zimmerman and that was completely unacceptable. He walked up to Zimmerman before the stage (it may have been the one where Zimmerman crashed) and said something to the effect of, "You didn't know we were all going to attack you today, did you" with that devilish grin on his face. La Vie Claire then proceeded to work him over in that stage.

Zimmerman was extremely strong and talented, but pretty frail mentally. The European riders tended to mock him because Zimmerman was vegetarian and it was rumored he ate these ridiculous meals with hardly any calories. He was incredibly thin. After '86, his best year, he went to ride for 7-Eleven as Hampsten's domestique, which suited him better. He got a 3rd in the Giro in '88, the year Hampsten won, and 6th in '89, when Hampsten finished 3rd in the Giro. He fit in much better with the American riders, who accepted his quirks and it seems he was happier there.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Why do some people insist on spelling Greg's name as "Lemond?" For the entirety of his career, it was spelled "LeMond." If you watched the show, when they played film of him from a 1978 race, it was indeed spelled "LeMond." I had someone years ago on a different board insist that the "LeMond" spelling was something new. It wasn't. It's always been spelled "LeMond."

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

I watched the film from the YouTube link and enjoyed it very much. I thought Hinault came across as a crazy, egotistical ***.

He's the furthest thing from crazy. In contrast to someone like Armstrong, who always depended on others to help him bully people, Hinault's force of personality allowed him to impose his will most anytime he wanted. He knew this and it obviously instilled in him limitless confidence in his abilities. He's no crazier than the big rooster that walks around with its chest puffed out, ruling the roost.

 

[shalgo]

Thanks for the link.

Now, you might get a GC guy who puts up a result now and then in LFW or LBL or perhaps Lombardia... but MSR or RVV or PR? Not happening.

MSR: Nibali 3rd 2012.
PR: Wiggins 10th 2014.
RVV: Well, the best here might be Armstrong from 2010, when he was in the group that sprinted for 5th--at least until Geraint Thomas becomes Sky's next GC man.

It doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it is not completely unheard-of.

And GC guys don't just put up a result "now and then" in FW, LBL, and Lombardia, but are usually among the top finishers.

 

[kurtinsc]

MSR: Nibali 3rd 2012.
PR: Wiggins 10th 2014.
RVV: Well, the best here might be Armstrong from 2010, when he was in the group that sprinted for 5th--at least until Geraint Thomas becomes Sky's next GC man.

It doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it is not completely unheard-of.

And GC guys don't just put up a result "now and then" in FW, LBL, and Lombardia, but are usually among the top finishers.

Well, I meant that over their career a given GC guy might have 1-2 results, not that GC guys wouldn't finish near the front regularly.

Let's look at podiums in big classics for Tour winners over the last few years.

Nibali - 3rd MSR, 2nd LBL
Froome - none outside of ITT's
Wiggins - none outside of ITT's
Evans - 1st in WC, 1st in LFW, 2nd in LFW
Schleck - 1st in LBL, 2nd LFW
Contador - 3rd in LFW
Sastre - 3rd in San Sebastian

I may have missed one or two in there when going through the lists.

In reality, some of the guys who are considered "GC riders" who do well in 1-days are probably 1-day riders that instead can hang around near the top of the GC. Purito and Valverde might fit in that category more... though Valverde did win the Vuelta so maybe not.

 

[Angliru]

Well, I meant that over their career a given GC guy might have 1-2 results, not that GC guys wouldn't finish near the front regularly.

Let's look at podiums in big classics for Tour winners over the last few years.

Nibali - 3rd MSR, 2nd LBL
Froome - none outside of ITT's
Wiggins - none outside of ITT's
Evans - 1st in WC, 1st in LFW, 2nd in LFW
Schleck - 1st in LBL, 2nd LFW
Contador - 3rd in LFW
Sastre - 3rd in San Sebastian

I may have missed one or two in there when going through the lists.

In reality, some of the guys who are considered "GC riders" who do well in 1-days are probably 1-day riders that instead can hang around near the top of the GC. Purito and Valverde might fit in that category more... though Valverde did win the Vuelta so maybe not.

Isn't hanging around near the top of the gc in grand tours the same thing making them proficient at both?

 

[nomapnocompass]

He's the furthest thing from crazy. In contrast to someone like Armstrong, who always depended on others to help him bully people, Hinault's force of personality allowed him to impose his will most anytime he wanted. He knew this and it obviously instilled in him limitless confidence in his abilities. He's no crazier than the big rooster that walks around with its chest puffed out, ruling the roost.

I came away from watching the film thinking Hinault was even more of a champion than I previously thought him to be. On the other hand LeMond comes across as mentally unstable and slightly annoying.

One thing that annoyed me about the film was the need felt by the director to include Armstrong in the narrative. Really, what was the point? The were other extremely talented American riders like Hampsten in the film who barely get lip service and nothing else. LeMond's issues with Armstrong are clearly more than about doping given that he speaks out in support of Pantani and other dopers.

However the most annoying feature of the film was the journalist Sam Abt who does the impossible and is even more irritating than LeMond whilst also managing to look like a turtle.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

I came away from watching the film thinking Hinault was even more of a champion than I previously thought him to be. On the other hand LeMond comes across as mentally unstable and slightly annoying.

One thing that annoyed me about the film was the need felt by the director to include Armstrong in the narrative. Really, what was the point? The were other extremely talented American riders like Hampsten in the film who barely get lip service and nothing else. LeMond's issues with Armstrong are clearly more than about doping given that he speaks out in support of Pantani and other dopers.

However the most annoying feature of the film was the journalist Sam Abt who does the impossible and is even more irritating than LeMond whilst also managing to look like a turtle.

I thought he was a whiner back then. His wife was an even bigger whiner, which you get a taste of in the documentary. Ultimately, it was LeMond's inability/unwillingness to assert himself, starting with the 1985 Tour, that created this situation. You will notice that Stephen Roche did just this the following year in the Giro when he refused to ride for the weaker team leader on his Carrera squad. It's entirely possible that some of you folks are correct, and Hinault was looking for him to do that.

Hinault was an immense talen and so was LeMond. However, I'm not convinced either was more gifted than Fignon. Fignon absolutely destroyed Hinault in the 1984 Tour. Laughed at him. And, remember, he basically had the Giro stolen from him that year, as well. Then he got injured pretty badly himself, and he had a couple dark years. He was back to full strength by 1989. Some people forget it, but Fignon was the stronger of the two in the mountains in that Tour and, let's face, the 8 seconds were probably accounted for by technology in the final TT. Fignon had already won Milan-San Remo and the Giro that year. I think the guy was every bit as good as Hinault and LeMond, possibly better.

And finally, I agree about Hampsten. He and Sean Kelly were my favorites in those days. The guy became one of the strongest climbers there was and he grew up in one of the flattest places on Earth - Grand Forks, North Dakota.

 

[nomapnocompass]

Agree with you on Fignon, one of my favourite riders of all time.

His autobiography is excellent and well worth reading.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Agree with you on Fignon, one of my favourite riders of all time.

His autobiography is excellent and well worth reading.

Yeah, I'm going to have to order that. I've heard good things about it.

"The Professor." Wish we had more characters like him today.

 

[Dedelou]

I thought he was a whiner back then. His wife was an even bigger whiner, which you get a taste of in the documentary. Ultimately, it was LeMond's inability/unwillingness to assert himself, starting with the 1985 Tour, that created this situation. You will notice that Stephen Roche did just this the following year in the Giro when he refused to ride for the weaker team leader on his Carrera squad. It's entirely possible that some of you folks are correct, and Hinault was looking for him to do that.

Hinault was an immense talen and so was LeMond. However, I'm not convinced either was more gifted than Fignon. Fignon absolutely destroyed Hinault in the 1984 Tour. Laughed at him. And, remember, he basically had the Giro stolen from him that year, as well. Then he got injured pretty badly himself, and he had a couple dark years. He was back to full strength by 1989. Some people forget it, but Fignon was the stronger of the two in the mountains in that Tour and, let's face, the 8 seconds were probably accounted for by technology in the final TT. Fignon had already won Milan-San Remo and the Giro that year. I think the guy was every bit as good as Hinault and LeMond, possibly better.

And finally, I agree about Hampsten. He and Sean Kelly were my favorites in those days. The guy became one of the strongest climbers there was and he grew up in one of the flattest places on Earth - Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Fignon was a tremendous talent , as often is the case , it impossible to measure raw talents and we only have palmares to judge. Hinault's is second only to Merccx and that will remain so for a long long time. Indeed 84 Tour was a great victory for Laurent but you concede he had bad years subsequent to injuries. Imagine then what hinault numbers would be if he too had no suffered serious injuries. Remember he had to abandon one tour wearing the yellow jersey and head up for surgery. in 85 you can't call Hinault a weak leader and compare him to what roche had to face in the giro later. come on.. Hinault was well established with a serious lead in GC when he crash leading one of his teammate for a stage win.. even when he cracked going up Luz Ardiden.. he did not loose the yellow jersey and had LeMond attacked his leader then , he many not only still had not won but might have had to face the fury Hinault in the stages that followed.

 

[Old School]

One thing that annoyed me about the film was the need felt by the director to include Armstrong in the narrative. Really, what was the point? The were other extremely talented American riders like Hampsten in the film who barely get lip service and nothing else. LeMond's issues with Armstrong are clearly more than about doping given that he speaks out in support of Pantani and other dopers.

That part of the story may have been included to possibly show the unknowing people who watched lance do his thing and thought "This is the greatest American cyclist ever...he's blazing trails never driven before" when those of us who watched LeMond from1985 on knew better.

ESPN reaches a broad group of sports fans. I know quite a few that really didn't know how great LeMond was compared to LA, even after his downfall. I think him being included is fair to place LeMond atop the cyclist from this country. That piece didn't just include mentioning LA, but Landis as well.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Fignon was a tremendous talent , as often is the case , it impossible to measure raw talents and we only have palmares to judge. Hinault's is second only to Merccx and that will remain so for a long long time. Indeed 84 Tour was a great victory for Laurent but you concede he had bad years subsequent to injuries. Imagine then what hinault numbers would be if he too had no suffered serious injuries. Remember he had to abandon one tour wearing the yellow jersey and head up for surgery. in 85 you can't call Hinault a weak leader and compare him to what roche had to face in the giro later. come on.. Hinault was well established with a serious lead in GC when he crash leading one of his teammate for a stage win.. even when he cracked going up Luz Ardiden.. he did not loose the yellow jersey and had LeMond attacked his leader then , he many not only still had not won but might have had to face the fury Hinault in the stages that followed.

Fair points, although, if your one reference is to the 1980 Tour, his injury has been questioned by some. Joop, as I recall, had just bested him in a TT and was getting stronger and stronger and I know some claim Hinault dropped out to save face with the injury excuse. Joop was extremely strong that year and was getting stronger as the Tour went on. He was no longer just following wheels.

You don't have to sell me on Hinault's palmares. I think the only question is whether he or Coppi should slot in at second place.

 

[kurtinsc]

Isn't hanging around near the top of the gc in grand tours the same thing making them proficient at both?

If you don't win one?

I don't know. I wouldn't think so. The guys who have lots of results in major classics seem to not win GT's and the guys with a number of GT wins tend to not have many results in major classics.

Back with Hinault, Fignon, Lemond (and pretty much every generation before that) the guys winning GT's were also winning or placing very high in major classics as well.

In general in today's cycling if you focus enough on the classics to do very well in them, you don't win much in the way of GT's, and vice versa it seems. Pre 1990, you had the guys dominating the GT's also winning or getting podiums in a LOT of the classics.

 

[kurtinsc]

Fignon was a tremendous talent , as often is the case , it impossible to measure raw talents and we only have palmares to judge. Hinault's is second only to Merccx and that will remain so for a long long time. Indeed 84 Tour was a great victory for Laurent but you concede he had bad years subsequent to injuries. Imagine then what hinault numbers would be if he too had no suffered serious injuries. Remember he had to abandon one tour wearing the yellow jersey and head up for surgery. in 85 you can't call Hinault a weak leader and compare him to what roche had to face in the giro later. come on.. Hinault was well established with a serious lead in GC when he crash leading one of his teammate for a stage win.. even when he cracked going up Luz Ardiden.. he did not loose the yellow jersey and had LeMond attacked his leader then , he many not only still had not won but might have had to face the fury Hinault in the stages that followed.

I don't know if Hinault's career could concievably have been much better in regard to GT's then it was. His record was incredible. From '78-'86 he entered 13 GT's. He won 10 of them, finished 2nd in two others and withdrew once.

That's pretty hard to improve on.

 

[Dedelou]

You don't have to sell me on Hinault's palmares. I think the only question is whether he or Coppi should slot in at second place.

That one wil have to stay unanswered for ever. Coppi need a place of its own. by the numbers alone , we know that Bernard comes on top, but Fausto has such a strange career.
He remain an icon that stands independently of any counts

 

[Angliru]

If you don't win one?

I don't know. I wouldn't think so. The guys who have lots of results in major classics seem to not win GT's and the guys with a number of GT wins tend to not have many results in major classics.

Back with Hinault, Fignon, Lemond (and pretty much every generation before that) the guys winning GT's were also winning or placing very high in major classics as well.

In general in today's cycling if you focus enough on the classics to do very well in them, you don't win much in the way of GT's, and vice versa it seems. Pre 1990, you had the guys dominating the GT's also winning or getting podiums in a LOT of the classics.

I think it's just a matter of time that Nibali wins a classic. Purito has come oh so close to winning a grand tour twice so to not give him credit for being proficient at both is quite curious. Of course Valverde has wins in both on his palmares. Andy Schleck has one classic and one grand tour. Danilo Diluca has both on his palmares. These are just off the top of my head. Contador came close the one season he actually put a serious effort in (Fleche Wallone) and still won the Tour the same year. It's not impossible in this day and age. Cadel Evans is another who has done well and won at both.

 

[leftover pie]

Not sure how long this will stay up but someone posted it on line

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo&sns=tw

legend!

10 charrrrrr