30 for 30 - Slaying the Badger

[Race Radio]

I know it's not the accepted interpretation but having read the book I still think that Hinault did ensure Greg won the tour; just not in the way people were expecting.
Hinault may be many things but a stupid rider is not one of them. His attack when he was in the Yellow Jersey was utterly stupid and a rider of Hinault's experience would have known that. If he'd have really wanted to have won the Tour he would not have done that.

Hinault went to to that tour to have some fun. He knew that LeMond was the strongest rider and that he was the next best. (The field was not very strong that year imo). He was going to go down all guns blazing knowing that if he did that Lemond would almost certainly win and the rest would be destroyed. If Lemond didn't win, well then he wasn't a deserving champion.

I do agree that Hinault's pride was a motivating factor. No way was he going to be just a domestique.
Because of Hinault's approach we are still taking about that Tour. Both LeMond's and Hinault's reputations were enhanced.

Could he have worked for Lemond in a more traditional way? Of course and it would have been the biggest bore feast of a tour ever if he had. The French would have crucified Hinault and everyone would be saying Lemond only won because Hinault let him.

For me Hinault got it spot on and doesn't get enough credit.

But that's just my opinion.

That is similar to what i walked away with after reading the book as well. It does seem that Hinault was screwing around but it was very hard on Greg and Kathy.......it was made even harder by Paul's terrible management. In the end the fans got an exciting tour.

The funny thing is Greg has seen Hinault almost every day for the last month while they both work the Tour. Consistently very friendly

 

[red_flanders]

I know it's not the accepted interpretation but having read the book I still think that Hinault did ensure Greg won the tour; just not in the way people were expecting.
Hinault may be many things but a stupid rider is not one of them. His attack when he was in the Yellow Jersey was utterly stupid and a rider of Hinault's experience would have known that. If he'd have really wanted to have won the Tour he would not have done that.

Hinault went to to that tour to have some fun. He knew that LeMond was the strongest rider and that he was the next best. (The field was not very strong that year imo). He was going to go down all guns blazing knowing that if he did that Lemond would almost certainly win and the rest would be destroyed. If Lemond didn't win, well then he wasn't a deserving champion.

I do agree that Hinault's pride was a motivating factor. No way was he going to be just a domestique.
Because of Hinault's approach we are still taking about that Tour. Both LeMond's and Hinault's reputations were enhanced.

Could he have worked for Lemond in a more traditional way? Of course and it would have been the biggest bore feast of a tour ever if he had. The French would have crucified Hinault and everyone would be saying Lemond only won because Hinault let him.

For me Hinault got it spot on and doesn't get enough credit.

But that's just my opinion.

Great post.

 

[masking_agent]

Finally got to watch it. Great Documentary. It took me back to the days of when I began watching this sport in 1985 and cheering for Stephen Roche and La Redoute up Luz Ardiden as well. It took me back to being glued to the CBS sports broadcast on the weekends and having my fingers on the record trigger of my betamax.

I really loved Greg and Kathy’s love for each other. They still seem so “giddy” for each other after all these years. It was nice to see a lot of questions answered. The comments by Kathy all makes sense now. What surprised me was Andy Hampstens’ take on the 86 tour and Koechli coming off as an inept manager as someone said earlier. I live near Steve Bauer, so I’m going to try pin him down in the upcoming months to see if he’ll talk to me about this documentary and the times of la vie claire.

 

[Dedelou]

Finally got to watch it. Great Documentary. It took me back to the days of when I began watching this sport in 1985 and cheering for Stephen Roche and La Redoute up Luz Ardiden as well. It took me back to being glued to the CBS sports broadcast on the weekends and having my fingers on the record trigger of my betamax.

I really loved Greg and Kathy’s love for each other. They still seem so “giddy” for each other after all these years. It was nice to see a lot of questions answered. The comments by Kathy all makes sense now. What surprised me was Andy Hampstens’ take on the 86 tour and Koechli coming off as an inept manager as someone said earlier. I live near Steve Bauer, so I’m going to try pin him down in the upcoming months to see if he’ll talk to me about this documentary and the times of la vie claire.

in the foggy aftermath of the finish at Luz Ardidens, i still remember Greg's voice as he was answering music man , turned interviewer, john Tesh.

 

[Moviefan1203]

I thought the film did a decent job of displaying Lemond's parnaoia, obsessiveness and mental health issues without outwardly calling him a nut job. Although I thought the film was fair to Hinault but a bit too kind to Lemond. But it was well done.

Yeah, Lemond was certainly done wrong but he doesn't seem to be very sound mentally. Very well done documentary. ESPN's 30 for 30 series is fantastic.

 

[SirLes]

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

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

Thanks for that. Great to see them talk, you get a better feeling for the thoughts behind the words- if you know what I mean.

Paul, Greg and Bernard and Bernard are very interesting personalities, that's for sure.

Just on the point of whether Hinault sabotaged his own chances;
the disbelief in Sherwen's voice when Hinault attacks when in yellow is very revealing. I just can't believe Hinault thought he could put more time into Greg doing that. He understood his body and its limitations, it was suicide and everybody knew it.

I still think Bernard kept his word but he had to do it his way. He would have known that Greg was suffering but I think wanted him to. No, felt he needed to, to be a true champion. It seems cruel to me but if I'd achieved what Hinault had done I may feel differently.

Paul is a very interesting character. From his perspective it seems he was doing an experiment on a new way of racing and from the results it appeared to have worked brilliantly. He therefore feels he has been entirely vindicated and a tactical genius, or at least that's how he comes across.

Bernard Tapie must have loved every minute of it and almost certainly thought he
was the genius behind it all.

It really shows that Greg didn't know what the **** was going on and was badly effected by what was happening but it also shows his real determination and character to win regardless/inspite of everything. A true champion.

and Hinault, the proud Breton patron of the peloton? He just did what he felt was right and in doing so remained in control and a winner even when losing.

For someone so competitive and who was supposed to be so desperate to win a sixth tour he'd try anything, he comes across as rather too relaxed about the whole thing. No lingering sense of disappointment or regret. He did what he said he would do, had fun and then retired as he said he would several years before.

Will we ever see something like it again?

I doubt it

 

[whittashau]

Lemond annoyed me a lot over the last month with his lack of ability behind the mic, but all along it was apparent that he was very passionate about cycling, and that he was a very emotional man.

And the documentary just confirmed it for me. However, it made me like him a lot more.

Really good watch overall

 

[Race Radio]

Lemond annoyed me a lot over the last month with his lack of ability behind the mic, but all along it was apparent that he was very passionate about cycling, and that he was a very emotional man.

And the documentary just confirmed it for me. However, it made me like him a lot more.

Really good watch overall

Here is the deal with Greg, in a one on one discussion there are few better at breaking down a race, talking about training, bike design, science.....the Challenger is this does not always translate in a more pressured environment like TV.

 

[avanti]

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.

 

[PosterBill]

What's always puzzled me is how Hinault explains his position always leaving an air of mystery and interpretation...maybe it's a French thing. Saying "I wanted Greg to earn it" then following that up with loads of quotes that are somewhat contradictory to some of his actions. And what criteria is used for the idea of earning a TDF? Greg certainly didn't make Hinault "earn it" the year before... It's a team made up of 2 leaders, 1 leader, without a leader...just a really bizarre race that year. Actually this story is full of contradictions that leave me scratching my head.

As an aside, Why didn't Lemond just follow Stephen Roche the year before instead of working with him? Or even attack him as the coach wanted even if he had lied about the time gaps?

ANd for the life of me I can't understand why Hinault was not asked "Why did you breakaway in 1986 with Delgado?" And the allegation that Hinault was approached to wreck Greg...strange that they would avoid asking that question

 

[kingjr]

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.

 

[gooner]

Here is the deal with Greg, in a one on one discussion there are few better at breaking down a race, talking about training, bike design, science.....the Challenger is this does not always translate in a more pressured environment like TV.

I think it's the same with Kelly. Both have the tactical analysis to match but sometimes their delivery of it can be the weak point.

Watched this Sunday night, I remember Tapie more for his match fixing scandal at Marseille. A dislikeable character.

Bought the book yesterday as a result of this programme.

 

[Big Doopie]

Koechli comes off as a lying idiot.

Once they got the fifth win, Hinault and Tapie clearly we're going for the historic sixth.

As to why Hinault attacked a second day in a row -- people forget that he had taken close to five minute with Herrera in 1985 only to see Lemond get stronger and threaten his leadership. This time he took nearly five minutes with Delgado but -- just as Lemond says -- I don' think Hinaut felt safe yet because of what happene the year before. He knew Lemond would get stronger and was better in th mountains. Hinault also had looked fairl weak -- particularly in the mountains of Pre-tour races, beaten badly by Herrera I believe.

Poor Lemond. Yes, he should have dropped Roche in 1985 but had was told Hinault was just 40 seconds behind instead of four minutes. That's a very different scenario. Attacking when you ar told your team leader (and idol) is still in yellow on the road (even though h wasn't).

What people have to remember is that it was a VERY different time. Lemond, as an American, was a COMPLETE outsider. Very difficult situation all together.

Hampsten comes across just as I imagined. Very nice, very sensible, and funny.

 

[Oldman]

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.

I can almost understand that perspective. He had success on a huge level and needed some motivation. Being a part-time villain isn't so bad if you're the French Cycling Elvis and Lemond is the Paul Anka.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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

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

Thanx! this week was hell so I missed it...just downloaded on my laptop!

 

[hfer07]

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

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

Thanks a lot RR

As assuring as Lemond sounded on his views-which are true-and as much as is emphasized on the video that he was getting screwed by La Vie Claire, Tapie & Hinault, I truly believe that Lemond became a truly champion because of what it took place back then, it was all the adversities that made him aware of what a champion has to endure to reach the top level- Yes- Hinault made it hard for him without a doubt & his attitude was cruel at first site, but then you realize that it was only Lemond alone - not anyone else- Lemond who truly beat Hinault- the great champion-That to me was the opening stage for Greg to conquer cycling from that year on-that was the milestone to be reached in order to walk on the path-- even Hinault said it at the end - It could have gone wrong for Lemond, but yet he won it beyond that....

I truly believe that greatness in life has to be "earned"- and Lemond did achieve greatness by overcoming all the obstacles thrown at him in that Tour--and I'm sure when Fignon was heading to the last day of the 89's Tour, I truly believe Lemond had a flash vision of what Hinault said back in 86 on Alpe D'Huez about the race not being over until they cross the final line and anything can happen before the race is finished....

 

[wannabecyclist]

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

 

[Boeing]

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.

 

[richwagmn]

Yeah, Lemond was certainly done wrong but he doesn't seem to be very sound mentally. Very well done documentary. ESPN's 30 for 30 series is fantastic.

Greg has ADHD and also persistent lead poisoning from the pellets still in his body. Sometimes his talking is a little unfocused, but I think he's been getting better at staying on a subject.

But not sound mentally? No idea where you're getting that from.

 

[richwagmn]

Here is the deal with Greg, in a one on one discussion there are few better at breaking down a race, talking about training, bike design, science.....the Challenger is this does not always translate in a more pressured environment like TV.

I think he did a pretty good job on Eurosport. Certainly more focused in his comments. I really enjoyed that segment after each stage.

 

[Moviefan1203]

Greg has ADHD and also persistent lead poisoning from the pellets still in his body. Sometimes his talking is a little unfocused, but I think he's been getting better at staying on a subject.

But not sound mentally? No idea where you're getting that from.

Watching it all unfold in the documentary, he seemed a bit...loopy.

 

[kingjr]

Watching it all unfold in the documentary, he seemed a bit...loopy.

Looking at what he's been through I find him surprisingly sane.

 

[jens_attacks]

damn, that interview, "maybe he crashes out" . hinault definitely, the greatest mobster on a bike, lance... a little kid compared.
great docu,a fascinating tour, the '86 one. i wish we had some characters again in the pro cycling

 

[FitSsikS]

please do, how do us canadians get to watch it ? online I assume ?

I'm really eager to watch it as I was watching that battle live every weekend on CBS sports.. John Tesh and Phil Liggett.. Great old days ..

While quantities.... ...er..last -

Here: on YouTube

 

[IndianCyclist]

After seeing the documentary,i really appreciate how hard it must have been for Lemond to win his 3 tours. 1986- Badgerian tactics and no team support. 1989- scintillating battle with a hungry Fignon and winning only by 8s. 1990- Chiappucci 10 min escapade and tenacity making it extremely difficult to make up time.