LeMond II

[jens_attacks]

maybe you also tell us from what year he started epo. marco that is

 

[thehog]

maybe you also tell us from what year he started epo. marco that is

It's the dumbest picture going around. It's looks official but it's not.

Randell is a tool as well. No idea that guy. Pantani family think he's a crock.

 

[thehog]

Kid was doing 150km rides as a 16 year old. Grew up in perfect training grounds for cycling.

Super super talented.

 

[Race Radio]

What? Lemond didn't defend Pantani doping, he attacked the Italian NADO for singling Pantani out. Big difference.

Agreed. Greg paints Marco as a cautionary tale. A troubled guy who who was ground up by the system. His point is clear, not sure why some are trying to twist it.

 

[Benotti69]

It's the dumbest picture going around. It's looks official but it's not.

Randell is a tool as well. No idea that guy. Pantani family think he's a crock.

Pantani's family are tools as well.

 

[the sceptic]

Greg saying lance was top 30 at best and Pantani was a great cyclist...what kind of tripe is that....

Lemond has talked a lot of crap after he started working for eurosport. sad to see.

 

[deValtos]

Randell is a tool as well. No idea that guy. Pantani family think he's a crock.

Pantani's family were concerned that Rendell was going to portray him in a bad light.

I think Rendell did a good job but obviously relatives don't want to read about how Pantani became increasingly deluded and paranoid, his cocaine binges, the car crashes he caused and please please please don't mention performance enhancing substances ...

Wasn't it only recently that Tonina even admitted there was a "chance" Pantani was using ?

 

[thehog]

Pantani's family are tools as well.

No they are lovely, highly respected and hard workers. Mrs. Pantani ran a very successful "piadina" shop which is still there today.

There's also a lovely Pantani museum in his home town. A well celebrated cyclist and the last of the true artists on the bike.

 

[thehog]

Pantani's family were concerned that Rendell was going to portray him in a bad light.

I think Rendell did a good job but obviously relatives don't want to read about how Pantani became increasingly deluded and paranoid, his cocaine binges, the car crashes he caused and please please please don't mention performance enhancing substances ...

Wasn't it only recently that Tonina even admitted there was a "chance" Pantani was using ?

There is suspicion that rival supermarkets run by the mafioso were trying to keep Marco hooked on coke. They were a simple family of hard workers. They were not prepared for what came.

Of course everyone remembers the highlights but like Ullrich, Marco was a very sensitive guy. At his height in Italy he was bigger than Armstrong ever became. Way bigger. Especially in his region. He was the one.

As I've mentioned before and the same with Armstrong, due to the growth of the internet the stars of cycling grew out of their own countries into much much bigger stars. Prior to this cycling filled local newspapers and thats about it.

 

[nomapnocompass]

If you want to read the biased nonsense version of Pantani's career that most people seem to believe, read "Man on the Run: The Life and Death of Marco Pantani". It is by his former agent and pretty much a means of her indicating it wasn't her fault.

Rendell's book is quite objective and well researched. Pantani was a talented climber but there is no way of knowing how good he was as he doped from a very early age. The same is true of Ullrich.

 

[thehog]

I'd love to see LeMond comment on the Israeli/Palestine conflict. I'm fairly sure he'd internally combust with mindless, nervous chatter.

 

[Berzin]

Some of the Pantani talk is relevant to the thread (as in Lemond's comments about him), but if you guys want to discuss Marco in further detail please start another thread.

 

[Merckx index]

I recently saw “Slaying the Badger”, and have a couple of questions for anyone who may be more familiar with that period than I am. I followed the Tour a little in those days, but only through newspaper reports the following day (typically a couple of small paragraphs), and the occasional weekly TV summary.

The movie implies that Lemond would have won the Tour in 1985, if he hadn’t been held back on a key stage when Hinault was struggling. This of course is a well known story. However, no mention was made of an earlier stage in which Hinault let Lemond go up the road ahead of him while Hinault controlled the peloton. I’m not sure which stage this was, but I think it was before the mountains, and Lemond got into a breakaway. As I remember it, Hinault let Lemond go to help him get second in the GC, but that extra time would have come back to haunt him later, when Hinault was struggling and Lemond was held back from gaining more time on him. But then again, Lemond was also held back on an earlier stage, the first mountain stage I think, when Hinault and Herrera went off.

So the question is, considering all these factors, the tactics in the early part of the race, was Lemond deserving of the win or not? If Hinault had not crashed, it seems very unlikely there would even be a question, but given that he did crash, did the time he in effect let Lemond have earlier in the race make a big difference?

The other question is why Hinault retired after 1986. He obviously wasn’t over the hill. Though he was second to Lemond, he finished far ahead of Zimmerman, who was third. I assume Hinault, looking into the future, saw Lemond as dominating the TDF, and didn’t want to play second fiddle or domestique to him. But it seemed Hinault could have still been a strong podium contender, and/or won other GTs. Remember, when he retired, he had won just one less GT than Merckx. He was 31, older than Merckx when the latter won his last Tour, but was he as burned out at that point as Eddie was? I know in those days riders did far more racing, so maybe he was, but given how strong he still was in 1986, it would seem it was more mental than physical.

If Hinault did retire mostly because of Lemond, I wonder if he felt regrets after the hunting accident, when the TDF became wide open the following year. Hard to believe he wouldn’t have been a strong contender, at the least.

 

[thehog]

It's great seeing the hog revise history with Walsh's work on Lance when he said nothing of the sort on here before Lance's fall. It wasn't despicable journalism then.

How would you know what I posted? Your join date is only recently. Or are you a sock?

I always posted that Walsh draws a conclusion and then finds the story to match. Said that all through the Armstrong era. Also said he's a terrible writer.

Nothing's changed. Walsh is still very poor at what he does and burns people.

They harder Gooner.

 

[gooner]

How would you know what I posted? Your join date is only recently. Or are you a sock?

I always posted that Walsh draws a conclusion and then finds the story to match. Said that all through the Armstrong era. Also said he's a terrible writer.

Nothing's changed. Walsh is still very poor at what he does and burns people.

They harder Gooner.

That's what you think and no I wasn't a sockpuppet.

You're a revisionist.

 

[pmcg76]

I recently saw “Slaying the Badger”, and have a couple of questions for anyone who may be more familiar with that period than I am. I followed the Tour a little in those days, but only through newspaper reports the following day (typically a couple of small paragraphs), and the occasional weekly TV summary.

The movie implies that Lemond would have won the Tour in 1985, if he hadn’t been held back on a key stage when Hinault was struggling. This of course is a well known story. However, no mention was made of an earlier stage in which Hinault let Lemond go up the road ahead of him while Hinault controlled the peloton. I’m not sure which stage this was, but I think it was before the mountains, and Lemond got into a breakaway. As I remember it, Hinault let Lemond go to help him get second in the GC, but that extra time would have come back to haunt him later, when Hinault was struggling and Lemond was held back from gaining more time on him. But then again, Lemond was also held back on an earlier stage, the first mountain stage I think, when Hinault and Herrera went off.

So the question is, considering all these factors, the tactics in the early part of the race, was Lemond deserving of the win or not? If Hinault had not crashed, it seems very unlikely there would even be a question, but given that he did crash, did the time he in effect let Lemond have earlier in the race make a big difference?

The other question is why Hinault retired after 1986. He obviously wasn’t over the hill. Though he was second to Lemond, he finished far ahead of Zimmerman, who was third. I assume Hinault, looking into the future, saw Lemond as dominating the TDF, and didn’t want to play second fiddle or domestique to him. But it seemed Hinault could have still been a strong podium contender, and/or won other GTs. Remember, when he retired, he had won just one less GT than Merckx. He was 31, older than Merckx when the latter won his last Tour, but was he as burned out at that point as Eddie was? I know in those days riders did far more racing, so maybe he was, but given how strong he still was in 1986, it would seem it was more mental than physical.

If Hinault did retire mostly because of Lemond, I wonder if he felt regrets after the hunting accident, when the TDF became wide open the following year. Hard to believe he wouldn’t have been a strong contender, at the least.

I think Hinault had a date set well in advance for his retirement and it had nothing to do with LeMond. Some riders couldn't let their ego suffer by going past it, so 'The Badger' wanted to pack it in when he was still on top or near the top. Riders definitely retired on average a lot younger back then, maybe as a result of so much racing.

As for the Tour questions, I think without the accident in 85 Hinault would have been the definite winner. There is a certain anglo bias in that it is perceived that LeMond should have been the rightful winner if he had been let loose, but up until St.Etienne, Hinault was the better rider.

Perhaps the book 'Slaying the badger' is more informative than the film.

 

[thehog]

That's what you think and no I wasn't a sockpuppet.

You're a revisionist.

Them are fighting words! Your join date is 2013 so sorry you weren't here to know what I posted. Stop making up stuff.

My position on Walsh has not changed. He's the same fool he always was. Remember when he was telling us Lance was going to buy the Tour? Walsh managed to squeeze out an entire book on the subject of something that never actually occurred.

Like his recent writings on Sky.

If Walsh writes something good I'll praise him. If not I'll call him out or do I have to have undying love like yourself of everything Walsh does?

 

[gooner]

Them are fighting words! Your join date is 2013 so sorry you weren't here to know what I posted. Stop making up stuff.

My position on Walsh has not changed. He's the same fool he always was. Remember when he was telling us Lance was going to buy the Tour? Walsh managed to squeeze out an entire book on the subject of something that never actually occurred.

Like his recent writings on Sky.

If Walsh writes something good I'll praise him. If not I'll call him out or do I have to have undying love like yourself of everything Walsh does?

You're wrong on the bolded.

You're a revisionist on his work with Lance because you've spat the dummy out with regards to his opinion on Sky. I have no issue with people disagreeing on the latter, I do when they suddenly try to change it with the former because of it. That's where you come in.

Show me where you called him a despicable journalist towards Lemond's comments.

 

[Netserk]

You're wrong on the bolded.

You're a revisionist on his work with Lance because you've spat the dummy out with regards to his opinion on Sky. I have no issue with people disagreeing on the latter, I do when they suddenly try to change it with the former because of it. That's where you come in.

Show me where you called him a despicable journalist towards Lemond's comments.

Sure your prior (and now deleted) gooner account joined before 2013, but your 2nd (the current one) gooner account did join in 2013, so there's nothing wrong with what Hog posted.

 

[thehog]

You're wrong on the bolded.

You're a revisionist on his work with Lance because you've spat the dummy out with regards to his opinion on Sky. I have no issue with people disagreeing on the latter, I do when they suddenly try to change it with the former because of it. That's where you come in.

Show me where you called him a despicable journalist towards Lemond's comments.

Well Gooner then you'll reveal who you were back in the day bet you don't.

What are you talking about? LeMond only recently revealed that Walsh had joined the two statements together. Everyone one unaware bar LeMond that Walsh had behaved in this disgusting fashion. Walsh was happy for the world to believe it was one statement. It never was. Walsh concealed this information from the reader. Manipulation basically.

And I don't need to show you anything. It's very straightforward case of misrepresentation from Walsh.

If you can't form your own opinions and have to follow the party line then perhaps this forum is not for you. There are ones around that cater for the fans. Try them

 

[Digger]

Hinault Lemond thing

People seem to forget is lemond being one of those who chased down Jock Boyer in the Worlds of '82...teammates

 

[Escarabajo]

I think Hinault had a date set well in advance for his retirement and it had nothing to do with LeMond. Some riders couldn't let their ego suffer by going past it, so 'The Badger' wanted to pack it in when he was still on top or near the top. Riders definitely retired on average a lot younger back then, maybe as a result of so much racing.

As for the Tour questions, I think without the accident in 85 Hinault would have been the definite winner. There is a certain anglo bias in that it is perceived that LeMond should have been the rightful winner if he had been let loose, but up until St.Etienne, Hinault was the better rider.

Perhaps the book 'Slaying the badger' is more informative than the film.

+1.

To the other points, yes I think Lemond was held back when Hinault went with Herrera and

No, I don't remember the stage in which Hinault let Lemond go. Simply put he had to chase hard on the Saint-Étienne stage while lemond was ahead with Delgado and Millar. That was the same stage in which he crashed. I don't think he was holding back that day.

 

[Energy Starr]

No they are lovely, highly respected and hard workers. Mrs. Pantani ran a very successful "piadina" shop which is still there today.

There's also a lovely Pantani museum in his home town. A well celebrated cyclist and the last of the true artists on the bike.

Say it isn't so, Hog....you're not fawning over a doper....are you?

 

[Tonton]

Hinault Lemond thing

People seem to forget is lemond being one of those who chased down Jock Boyer in the Worlds of '82...teammates

LeMond was THE ONE who chased down Boyer. They were all looking at each other, no one wanted to be the one chasing. He launched the Beppe like Renshaw would launch the Cav.

 

[Race Radio]

Hinault Lemond thing

People seem to forget is lemond being one of those who chased down Jock Boyer in the Worlds of '82...teammates

Oh brother.

John Wilcookson, no fan of Greg's, said it best.

I’m certain that Boyer’s chance of turning that attack into a winner was as remote as the South Pole.