LeMond II

[thehog]

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

I am. I've never had a problem with cyclists that dope. Doping is cycling. I just don't like the hypocrisy that goes with pretending to be clean. theHog loves panache; Ricco, Landis, Pantani have loads of it. Cycling is worse off for suspending those three.

Instead they give us automatons like Armstrong & Froome. Such a dumb sport like that.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
This thread is about Lemond ....not thehog out any other members

Please keep squabbling out of it

Cheers
Bison

 

[thehog]

Gentle(wo)men,
This thread is about Lemond ....not thehog out any other members

Please keep squabbling out of it

Cheers
Bison

To be fair I wasn't outing anyone. I was saying if they posted here prior to their current name then say what the previous login name was. Gooner was trying to out me as hypercritical and made reference to previous postings. I wouldn't have brought it up if I wasn't attacked on the very point.

But, yes, let's move on

 

[JimmyFingers]

I am. I've never had a problem with cyclists that dope. Doping is cycling. I just don't like the hypocrisy that goes with pretending to be clean. theHog loves panache; Ricco, Landis, Pantani have loads of it. Cycling is worse off for suspending those three.

Instead they give us automatons like Armstrong & Froome. Such a dumb sport like that.

Gee, thanks for spelling out for us.

 

[thehog]

Gee, thanks for spelling out for us.

A pleasure. I don't much mind Wiggins either. He's one of the more likable dopers.

 

[Merckx index]

OK, I found the reference to when Hinault let Greg go up the road. It was on stage 14, the stage where Hinault later crashed:

Stage 14 changed everything. It was a little detour through the Massif Central of France with a single first category climb. Again Herrera took off early. LeMond joined Delgado, Millar and 5 others in a hard chase. Back in the peloton Hinault marked Roche and the others, hoping that LeMond would get away and solidify his hold on second place. The strategy worked and the Hinault group came in to the finish 2 minutes behind winner Luis Herrera (who had crashed earlier that day and remounted) and 1 minute behind the LeMond group. With less than a kilometer to go Hinault, Phil Anderson and 4 others crashed badly. The riders were beginning their sprint and touched wheels. Hinault lay there for some minutes being checked over by the Tour's doctor. He climbed back on his bike and rode across the line, his face and particularly his nose a bloody mangle of flesh. That's a scene that gets played over and over again when TV shows want to show something dramatic about the Tour: Hinault determined to finish, blood dripping from his face.

Lemond actually gained 1:51 on Hinault on that stage, and of course we’ll never know if there would have been the crash if he hadn’t gone up the road. About that crash, though: It was inside a km from the finish, so the rule about crashes and time losses was in effect. What I don't understand is that if everyone in that group went down, what time reference is there to give them? It's not like a mass sprint, where the rest of the peloton goes on. Did someone in that group avoid the crash, or if not, did they give everyone the time of the rider who picked himself up off the road and finished the quickest? If the latter, Hinault and the others would have lost some time as a result of the crash.

On stage 17, where Lemond was ordered to wait for Hinault, Greg finished 2:27 behind behind Herrera (who was second on the stage behind Delgado), less than the 2:25 he trailed Hinault by on the GC at the end of that stage. Lemond had actually been ahead of Herrera when he started talking to the team car, and Herrera passed him at that point. So Lemond probably could have finished at least with Herrera and taken yellow at that point.

Still, even if he had, it would have been close. Lemond picked up a few more seconds on Hinault on the remaining stages, including just five seconds in the final ITT. And in some of the earlier stages in that Tour, Lemond picked up some time bonuses, including one when two riders ahead of him were relegated. Not hard to imagine a scenario in which those bonuses could have decided the Tour.

Another "what if" to consider: GL seemed to have a lot of trouble with mechanicals. In 1985, he lost time in the opening Prologue and in the Stage 13 ITT because of bike problems. Absent those, Hinault's final margin would have been much narrower, maybe around a minute. Lemond also lost time in two ITTs in 1986, though one was the result of a crash.

Not to mention if Greg had not switched teams for that Tour, Fignon's injury would have meant he would have been the main man on another team, and would not have had to hold back attacking Hinault or any other contender.

 

[Digger]

Oh brother.

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

Just to be clear, did he or did he not chase down his own teammate, something which caused and continues to cause a lot of controversy...

Secondly, he says Pantani was a great cyclist...based on what? He says Ullrich would have won the tour ten times...then says lance was top 30 at best...then goes on to say froome is one of the greatest riders of all time...and says indurain is also...a guy you know full well doped.

You say he had a bigger issue with the doctors and saw pantani as a victim of the system.
So why then did he go out of his way to inject himself into the landis case. I didn't see him defending landis much...eventhough he volunteered a private phone call whereby he later admitted that landis in no way admitted to doping.

 

[hiero2]

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. . . .

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? . . .

The other question is why Hinault retired after 1986. . . . .

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. . . .

Oh brother.

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

Oh, yeah, John Wilcockson, imo, another inflated ego. Yet, his opinion does have a lot of validity. Interesting to know, thank you.

Hinault - I don't think he ever had more than 5 minutes of regret on his worst day. One strong willed man.

Here's the thing, tho - nobody knows who would have won, IF ONLY! It did not happen that way, so any further conversation is purely speculative. Like, IF ONLY Froome and Contador had not crashed out this year at the Tour. You can argue all day, but in the end it is only what-if fiction. And there has certainly been a US contingent ever since, who are fans of saying "Greg would have won". It is easy to get caught up in such speculation. For instance, without the turkey-hunting accident, one could easily speculate that Greg could have won 5 tours. Even without the "gift" to Hinault. And without EPO - it could have been 6 - if you really want to speculate.

As for race coverage - we didn't GET much more in the US that year than what you said you read/saw (newspaper, couple of paragraphs, tv weekly roundup). Go to youtube, though, there you will find archived EuroSport and Channel 4 coverage - great stuff. As much as you get for a race even today.

About Hinault retiring - one thing not mentioned was the pay scales. The pay scales back then, even for stars, were way less than today. Magnitudes less. And they had to race many more days in the year to make money. So there wasn't a whole lot of reason to stick around until more advanced ages like today. You had to go out and find a "real" life. Some of the stars managed to parlay their stardom into bicycling related jobs, just like today, but probably fewer, since the whole industry was much smaller and less well compensated.

 

[RownhamHill]

OK, I found the reference to when Hinault let Greg go up the road. It was on stage 14, the stage where Hinault later crashed:



Lemond actually gained 1:51 on Hinault on that stage, and of course we’ll never know if there would have been the crash if he hadn’t gone up the road. About that crash, though: It was inside a km from the finish, so the rule about crashes and time losses was in effect. What I don't understand is that if everyone in that group went down, what time reference is there to give them? It's not like a mass sprint, where the rest of the peloton goes on. Did someone in that group avoid the crash, or if not, did they give everyone the time of the rider who picked himself up off the road and finished the quickest? If the latter, Hinault and the others would have lost some time as a result of the crash.

On stage 17, where Lemond was ordered to wait for Hinault, Greg finished 2:27 behind behind Herrera (who was second on the stage behind Delgado), less than the 2:25 he trailed Hinault by on the GC at the end of that stage. Lemond had actually been ahead of Herrera when he started talking to the team car, and Herrera passed him at that point. So Lemond probably could have finished at least with Herrera and taken yellow at that point.

Still, even if he had, it would have been close. Lemond picked up a few more seconds on Hinault on the remaining stages, including just five seconds in the final ITT. And in some of the earlier stages in that Tour, Lemond picked up some time bonuses, including one when two riders ahead of him were relegated. Not hard to imagine a scenario in which those bonuses could have decided the Tour.

Another "what if" to consider: GL seemed to have a lot of trouble with mechanicals. In 1985, he lost time in the opening Prologue and in the Stage 13 ITT because of bike problems. Absent those, Hinault's final margin would have been much narrower, maybe around a minute. Lemond also lost time in two ITTs in 1986, though one was the result of a crash.

Not to mention if Greg had not switched teams for that Tour, Fignon's injury would have meant he would have been the main man on another team, and would not have had to hold back attacking Hinault or any other contender.

Just on the crash - I'm pretty sure he was with a big peloton, not just a small group. ITV did a feature on it this year in their highlights on the stage into st Etienne - with an interview with Hainault as well - might be on YouTube if you want to check, and the feature had footage of crash.

 

[poupou]

Crash of Hinault in St-Etienne

You can have a look of Hinault's crash here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ugpiYhSAk

 

[kingjr]

Just to be clear, did he or did he not chase down his own teammate, something which caused and continues to cause a lot of controversy...

And it's bullsh.t that it causes controversy. It simply does not matter when that teammate has no chance of winning.

 

[RownhamHill]

You can have a look of Hinault's crash here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ugpiYhSAk

Thanks! I wish my French was better - that interview with Hinault afterwards looked amazing, such sang froid!

 

[Race Radio]

Just to be clear, did he or did he not chase down his own teammate, something which caused and continues to cause a lot of controversy...

Secondly, he says Pantani was a great cyclist...based on what? He says Ullrich would have won the tour ten times...then says lance was top 30 at best...then goes on to say froome is one of the greatest riders of all time...and says indurain is also...a guy you know full well doped.

You say he had a bigger issue with the doctors and saw pantani as a victim of the system.
So why then did he go out of his way to inject himself into the landis case. I didn't see him defending landis much...eventhough he volunteered a private phone call whereby he later admitted that landis in no way admitted to doping.

I can image that some folks who do not understand bike racing might have get worked up about 82 if they are searching for something to get angry about.....but nobody who has actually raced bikes believes Jock was doing anything but riding backwards.

I don't agree with Greg about Pantani's or Ullrich's talent but that does not mean I ignore all of his other very valid points.

 

[Parker]

Just to be clear, did he or did he not chase down his own teammate, something which caused and continues to cause a lot of controversy...

The thing is they weren't a team. They were just individuals wearing the same jersey (it had happened in bigger cycling nations than the USA before)

 

[Digger]

I can image that some folks who do not understand bike racing might have get worked up about 82 if they are searching for something to get angry about.....but nobody who has actually raced bikes believes Jock was doing anything but riding backwards.

I don't agree with Greg about Pantani's or Ullrich's talent but that does not mean I ignore all of his other very valid points.

Greg over the last month and in the pantani documentary has shown himself to be a monumental hypocrite...in the latter he actually derides lance for making it look so easy against marco in 2000 ventoux - when they were BOTH on the exact same drug!

 

[Elagabalus]

Just to be clear, did he or did he not chase down his own teammate, something which caused and continues to cause a lot of controversy...

Secondly, he says Pantani was a great cyclist...based on what? He says Ullrich would have won the tour ten times...then says lance was top 30 at best...then goes on to say froome is one of the greatest riders of all time...and says indurain is also...a guy you know full well doped.

You say he had a bigger issue with the doctors and saw pantani as a victim of the system.
So why then did he go out of his way to inject himself into the landis case. I didn't see him defending landis much...eventhough he volunteered a private phone call whereby he later admitted that landis in no way admitted to doping.

Uh.. Ok,

Yes, he chased down his own teammate but no it doesn't cause a lot of controversy even today.

He did not inject himself into the Landis case. He was called to testify because of a phone conversation he had had with Landis when he first tested postive. You're drinking the Armstrong Kool-Aide now.

 

[Amazinmets73]

Greg over the last month and in the pantani documentary has shown himself to be a monumental hypocrite...in the latter he actually derides lance for making it look so easy against marco in 2000 ventoux - when they were BOTH on the exact same drug!

I doubt Pantani injected a bag of blood the day before the stage. Pantani also was not in top condition

 

[Digger]

Uh.. Ok,

Yes, he chased down his own teammate but no it doesn't cause a lot of controversy even today.

He did not inject himself into the Landis case. He was called to testify because of a phone conversation he had had with Landis when he first tested postive. You're drinking the Armstrong Kool-Aide now.

Haha!
So how did usada find out about this phone call? By magic?

And do you realise what Floyd had to ask Greg to stop doing in that phone call? Considering how he has repeatedly said nothing and praised other guys who did the same...

 

[42x16ss]

Haha!
So how did usada find out about this phone call? By magic?

And do you realise what Floyd had to ask Greg to stop doing in that phone call? Considering how he has repeatedly said nothing and praised other guys who did the same...

So you would withhold information from the authorities pertaining to a current investigation? Pretty sure that's a criminal offense...

 

[Digger]

So you would withhold information from the authorities pertaining to a current investigation? Pretty sure that's a criminal offense...

firstly USADA isn't a crime agency so that analogy falls down

I asked why he injected himself into one case, spoke to media...then phoned Floyd and then volunteered this phone call to USADA...yet praises other dopers and never questions them.

 

[thehog]

So you would withhold information from the authorities pertaining to a current investigation? Pretty sure that's a criminal offense...

USADA is criminal?

Well I never.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I asked why he injected himself into one case, spoke to media...then phoned Floyd and then volunteered this phone call to USADA...yet praises other dopers and never questions them.

Was that before or after Floyd or his lawyer tried to mess with LeMond's child abuse issues?

You seem to have some sort of a mancrush on Floyd, thats okay.

 

[Digger]

Was that before or after Floyd or his lawyer tried to mess with LeMond's child abuse issues?

Wrong and wrong -

Wasn't his lawyer...and secondly greg was spewing to the media about Floyd, something he is very selective about, then phoned Floyd in private...then volunteered this conversation to USADA...Saying landis more or less admitted to doping, something greg said later that Floyd did no such a thing.

Listen if greg wants to go down that route ok, but do it with everyone and not just ones he has a personal issue with.

Secondly don't tell USADA that someone admitted to doping, or that that was implied in the conversation, when in no way shape or form that happened.

Greg moans about epo shortening his career and then says Miguel was one of the best of all time...why doesn't he say that Miguel was one of the ones he's angry with...he's a hypocrite.

Man crush....with the fearless greg lemond?

 

[Digger]

Sean Kelly on 1982:
"I don't think that Boyer was fading...He got quite a good gap. Nobody wanted to go after him...Yes, LeMond chased down Boyer. Boyer was the only man up the road."

Greg responded after:
"I'm racing for Renault and I'm racing for myself. It's a business"

Pure class.

This is what Jock said; “Odd that you should ask, as I was just looking at a letter written to me by Jean de Gribaldi (former pro team manager of both Boyer and Kelly). He said that Greg had stolen the win from me, and that Kelly told him that they would never have chased me down if it hadn’t been for Greg – and that I’d have won the race.”

Surely there must have been some kind of tactical agreement between the two Americans? “I asked Greg about it at the finish, and he told me that he didn’t care who won, as long as it wasn’t me – as I didn’t deserve it.”

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentra...e-american-dream-the-story-of-the-1982-worlds

 

[gooner]

firstly USADA isn't a crime agency so that analogy falls down

I asked why he injected himself into one case, spoke to media...then phoned Floyd and then volunteered this phone call to USADA...yet praises other dopers and never questions them.

He told Floyd to come fully clean. He felt he could save the sport.

You criticise JV for telling Floyd not to fully come clean on everything he knows and then do it to Greg when he wants him to do otherwise.