• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
so the french guy finds wiggo's words 'unacceptable'.....tough titty! an ex cyclist may say exactly what they like

surely current events take priority..... give fans a sport everyone has faith in

Mark L
 
Aug 18, 2016
318
4
3,285
Re:

ebandit said:
so the french guy finds wiggo's words 'unacceptable'.....tough titty! an ex cyclist may say exactly what they like

surely current events take priority..... give fans a sport everyone has faith in

Mark L
Yes he can say what he likes. Just confirming what those of us have suspected all along. People of the same ilk congregate together. Another terrible role model in cycling. When are they going to wake up that it is not okay to dope? What about the young ones who look up to them? They do have some responsibility there surely.
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
Yes he can say what he likes. Just confirming what those of us have suspected all along. People of the same ilk congregate together. Another terrible role model in cycling. When are they going to wake up that it is not okay to dope? What about the young ones who look up to them? They do have some responsibility there surely.
Just to avoid confusion, what are you complaining about here, what Wiggins said, what Lappartient said, or what both of them said?
 
The book is simply one mans narrative from childhood of the riders he was inspired by growing up and turning pro etc. It's simply his love affair with bike racing. As books go, it's been done a million times before. The part about Armstrong is actually from the perspective of Henri Desgrange, not Wiggins, but this has been ignored and used as a stick to beat Wiggins with sadly.

Whether you like cycling or not, Lance is fascinating as a 21st-century cultural and social phenomenon. There are any number of books analysing his career, the corporate interests behind it and the context in which it took place. It’s unbelievable in the most literal sense, but it’s also interesting as regards the way cycling defines itself as a sport. Legend has it that Henri Desgrange, the ‘Father of the Tour’, envisaged a ‘perfect winner’. He was of the idea that the ideal Tour de France would have one finisher, a type of super-athlete who would not only defeat his opponents, but also whatever nature might throw at him. It was an extreme version of cycling, and a very French one. It also explains why Tour de France winners tended to be masochistic, obsessive and, on occasion, borderline sociopathic.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
The part about Armstrong is actually from the perspective of Henri Desgrange, not Wiggins, but this has been ignored and used as a stick to beat Wiggins with sadly.
Given Desgrange is dead nearly eighty years now, I think that's a stretch, even by your notoriously loose standards of truthfulness. The chapter is fully from Wiggins's perspective (a clue: "I'll never forget the first time I 'met' Lance Armstrong."). Wiggins (with help from Herbie Sykes) argues that, in his opinion, Armstrong is the type of rider Desgrange would have approved of. To which one has to say "up to a point, Lord Copper." Because while Armstrong, while winning, would have been the type of rider Desgrange lionised, once caught, once Armstrong brought the race into disrepute, the Texan became the type of rider Desgrange would have turned against. In the opinion of others, that is, Desgrange not being around today to dispute these claims. But to borrow from Lappartient here, we only have to go back to Pélissier to support that opinion.

Goddet, on the other hand, was a more forgiving kind of man, he even helped rahabilitate Maurice Garin, the villain of the 1904 Tour.

As for the nonsense of Desgrange's "perfect winner" - the legend only refers to an ideal Tour, the one ending with one rider still standing: "Le Tour idéal serait un Tour où un seul coureur réussirait à terminer l'epreuve."
 
I'm talking more about Wiggins source for his 'perfect winner' quote, not the original or its worded accuracy. That IS a Henri Desgrange quote from the times in interviews/ his columns in L’Équipe as you say.

Wiggins book reads very similarly to Henri Desgrange's wiki page, which is most likely where Wiggins / his research lifted the 'perfect winner' idea from, or from Robert Penns book which is where the wiki entry originates from. Robert Penns source in his book is L’Équipe's interview/column with Desgrange.

In terms of Henri Desgrange, discussing a 'perfect winner' at all in that interview, that is in relation to him discussing Tulio Campagnolo wanting to introduce gears and/or Mavic, their aluminium rims to the Tour de France in his L’Équipe column, both of which he was against at the time but in your source too. (See Robert Penn below)

WIKI
"To Desgrange, the Tour de France was not simply a long-distance and multi-day cycle race - an idea invented by Lefèvre - but close to what would now be called social engineering. He sought not just the best cyclist but a supreme athlete. To him, he said several times, the perfect Tour would have a perfect winner only if one man survived."

ROBERT PENN
Henri Desgranges, the editor of a French sporting daily, developed the idea of the Tour de France in order to outsell a rival newspaper. He wanted stories of machismo in forbidding mountains, adversity in extreme weather, heroism and the crucifixion of men. He wasn't interested in gadgetry. Desgranges said "Variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles rather than by the artifice of a derailleur? We are getting soft." When the French component company Mavic produced the first aluminium wheel rims, Desgranges prohibited the use of them too. "The perfect Tour", he often said, "would have a perfect winner if only one man survived."
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I'm talking more about Wiggins source for 'perfect winner' quote, not the original.
You were talking about perspective and were correctly called out on that lie.

Now you want to do sources? Well please, don't insult me by using a citation-free Wiki quote or by holding Robert Penn up as some kind of expert. He's not. And please, L'Équipe never, ever interviewed Desgrange. He was six years dead before that paper was born.

The comment is, as Wiggins said, as I said, a legend. No one has a source for it. The best approximation of its orgins that many agree on is that it was a post-war coinage by Goddet and co for the relaunched race. This doesn't stop it being repeated in dozens of books (seriously, you really think so little of Wiggins and Sykes you imagine them relying on Wiki and Penn for their knowledge? That speaks volumes about you). It is, after all, legendary.
 
We are in agreement, what's the problem? Wiggins 'perfect winner' source is clearly not his own thoughts. It's not even worded as his own thought either, it's worded as Desgranges. True, the 'perfect winner' is probably not exactly what Desgrange actually said, but in his book he says 'Legend has it'. He's not pretending accuracy or anything, simply looking at various sources where the 'perfect winner' quote has been used for years before Wiggins book and obviously where the 'perfect winner' legend comes from for Wiggins too. Penn and Wiki are just two obvious examples that use the term as does Wiggins book, nothing more than that. My original claim remains "The part about Armstrong is actually from the perspective of Henri Desgrange, not Wiggins" regardless of its accuracy.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
True, the 'perfect winner' is probably not exactly what Desgrange actually said, but in his book he says 'Legend has it'.
In you obsessive need to absolve Wiggins of any responsibilty for the opinions he expresses, you really do say some daft things. Wiggins used a legend, a myth, a posh lie, to justify an opinion. In my opinion, in the opinion of others, his opinion is only half right. On the way up, Degrange would have approved of Armstrong. And we don't need the comforting lies of myth to be able to say that, real history supports that opinion. But, once the Texan disgraced the race, Desgrange would not have approved. An opinion also supported by real history. This is the elephant in the room Wiggins pretends not to see.

Why you can't countenance any criticism of your hero, any disagreement with your hero, I do not know. But if you can't find some way to bring this back to the topic of this thread, Lappartient, I would respectively suggest you take your problem elsewhere.
 
Nowhere does Wiggins state Armstrong was the 'perfect winner'. The only thing he states is Henri Desgrange's legend of a perfect winner "was an extreme version of cycling, and a very French one. It also explains why Tour de France winners tended to be masochistic, obsessive and, on occasion, borderline sociopathic." ie Armstrong's personality.

Nowhere does Wiggins explain Armstrong 'to himself' as a perfect winner, nowhere.
 
Thought this was discussing Lappartient? Wiggins is the subject of what Lappartient said and about Lappartient's credibility. ie he talks without having the facts sometimes so perhaps is worse than Cookson?
 
Jul 4, 2016
234
12
3,060
Lappartient is much better than Cookson. He's making life uncomfortable for the cheaters instead of assisting them like Cookson did.
Who is wiggins?
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
topcat said:
Lappartient is much better than Cookson. He's making life uncomfortable for the cheaters instead of assisting them like Cookson did.
Who is wiggins?
valv piti...major tom.........da dawg not gonna sleep easy no more....

who is wiggins? exactly my point the french guy should sort everything with

actions................not words
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS