Lemond's Legacy: How Lemond Changed Cycling

[rhubroma]

I hate LeMond but he has the right to be referred to by his real name : LeMond, with capital M.

LeMond never changed anything himself, he's the product of an era. Big domestique pay? Ask Alain Vigneron about that.

Focus on Bore de France, yeah but so did Hinault in his last 2 years. Actually that's Tapie's revolution. He realized that commercially a handful of races were enough to sell his goods. There was no need to waste energy on small kermesses.

Tapie was one hell of a bast*rd. He had by that time made a fortune in fooling Bokassa, buying out his castle at a very low price. In the 90's, he had left cycling for football, his name will be synonymous with corruption of referees (Marseille-Valenciennes match) and doping (admition by Waddle and Cascarino, there were constant injection in Marseille).

Tapie used cycling champion strictly for their commercial potential. He argued that a car name on a jersey did not sell any car (referring to the two main French teams at the time: Renault & Peugeot) but that the champions conveyed a formidable image. Tapie divided riders into two categories: those who are “associated with technical or industrial achievements” – these would gain huge income – and those “for whom cycling only consisted in pedaling” (those would just have their salaries which was low and sometimes every year lower, the case of Alain Vigneron). LeMond was in the first category – ‘LeMond only has money relationship with me’, he says – and signed a record 1 million $ contract for three years with Tapie. http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=1883

Tapie was a Berlusconi ante litteram. The only difference is that he was thrown in jail. It is interesting, however, that he foresaw the liberal potential of maximizing one's investments in a sport that was desperately trying to increase it's global market share, which at the time meant conquering the US. Lemond was unwittingly a ready-made work or art for the coup.

Much of the Armstrong debacle, with supreme irony, in being "too big to fail" for the UCI, was thus a foregone conclusion.

 

[Franklin]

LeMond is the great what-if. If he hadn't been shot, he might have had a career like Hinault's. Or not. I certainly don't think the pre-buckshot LeMond would have had any problem beating Roche or Delgado, but that's just my opinion.

yeah yeah. But if we go on about young palmares even you should admit that he was a far far cry from Hinault, indeed even Laurent outshone him.

Greg's trouble was that in 1984-1984 he was inferior to Fignon and in 1985 he was inferior to Hinault untill Bernard had that horrible crash.

And what Greg truly must take with him to the end is how extremely lucky he was that Hinault commited suicide in the second mountain stage in 1986, as he was untill that moment actually being crushed by Hinault.

Greg never won a TdF where he was clearly the strongest. He always had to cling on and hope for the best. Great rider, but always outshone by the French superstars who were much more aggressive and clearly much stronger.

He was smarter and had incredible luck.

Everyone talks about the buckshot, but if we go on a "what if" rant all who have seen those years know that he would be second fiddle until Laurent keeled over.


To Dirtyworks. It's great you are a huge fan, but Greg was well known to have the shortest season of his peers and be absolutely ridiculously bad on invited courses which gave him a terrible name. Sorry, defending Greg on his short season is just bizarre if you look at his contemporaries. Greg was indeed the one who started the change to less racing days. Denying this is just dumb.

 

[Franklin]

And yet Hinault's calendar in 1985 was much lighter than in his Renault years. Let alone 1986. He focused on stage races, while he formerly would race the classic springs through.

True, but you claimed TdF only and you probably also know that Hinault rode himself into form. So the argument still failed.

LeMond in 1986 .

Greg didn't race for laughs in that Giro, it was not very suited to him. His spring campaign is the best he ever had and that shows he was more than just participating.

I certainly agree Greg had a very short season for that day and age, but both 1985 and 1986 certainly were quite a bit more than just the TdF.

I.o.w I don't think it was LVC that started the TdF focussing, that was more a result of TV coverage and press. Greg and the others simply followed that.

To wit: In 1989 Laurent beat the snot out of Greg's season, wining from dstart to end. And yeah, Laurent was long time coming back from injury disaster as well.

 

[rhubroma]

yeah yeah. But if we go on about young palmares even you should admit that he was a far far cry from Hinault, indeed even Laurent outshone him.

Greg's trouble was that in 1984-1984 he was inferior to Fignon and in 1985 he was inferior to Hinault untill Bernard had that horrible crash.

And what Greg truly must take with him to the end is how extremely lucky he was that Hinault commited suicide in the second mountain stage in 1986, as he was untill that moment actually being crushed by Hinault.

Greg never won a TdF where he was clearly the strongest. He always had to cling on and hope for the best. Great rider, but always outshone by the French superstars who were much more aggressive and clearly much stronger.

He was smarter and had incredible luck.

Everyone talks about the buckshot, but if we go on a "what if" rant all who have seen those years know that he would be second fiddle until Laurent keeled over.


To Dirtyworks. It's great you are a huge fan, but Greg was well known to have the shortest season of his peers and be absolutely ridiculously bad on invited courses which gave him a terrible name. Sorry, defending Greg on his short season is just bizarre if you look at his contemporaries. Greg was indeed the one who started the change to less racing days. Denying this is just dumb.

Yea but were talking about a 5 time Tour winner, thus it wasn't Hinault's stupidity, but that he was desperate to win. Because this was still romantic cycling.

Perhaps he underestimated himself, but the fact remains that he was looking to gain an insurmountable advantage and it backfired.

The irony is that today, he'd have won.

 

[Franklin]

The irony is that today, he'd have won.

Uhm? When was the last time we saw a really early attack by a contender succeed? I can only think of Chiapucci. We are talking going at three cols to go... that was pretty crazy even in the 80ies.

But on the advantage H. was looking for: he had it at that time and it would have clinched the ticket. Though differences are bigger nowadays even back then TdF's got decided by small margins now and then. 5 minutes was HUGE.

It was uncharacteristic madness. Hinault was an attacker, but he was never that crazy.

 

[DirtyWorks]

To Dirtyworks. It's great you are a huge fan, but Greg was well known to have the shortest season of his peers and be absolutely ridiculously bad on invited courses which gave him a terrible name. Sorry, defending Greg on his short season is just bizarre if you look at his contemporaries. Greg was indeed the one who started the change to less racing days. Denying this is just dumb.

Mixing facts up and adding new claims to make your point isn't going to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

These stats are very incomplete: http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?=&id=113201&season=1983

hmm, raced well in spring, summer, and fall. Amazing!

Was LeMond alone responsible for specialization? No. Did he try it? Yes. And what of this specialization? What is it? Was it new in LeMonds era? No.

Good or bad, cycling history tends to be grouped by standout riders and in such a poorly documented sport as cycling, I tend to believe some things called new really aren't. Specialization and short schedules being two examples.

 

[Franklin]

Mixing facts up and adding new claims to make your point isn't going to work.

Which I certainly don't.

http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?=&id=113201&season=1983

hmm, raced well in spring, summer, and fall. Amazing!

Why pick 1983, the year he rode no GT?

Was LeMond alone responsible for specialization? No. Did he try it? Yes. And what of this specialization? What is it? Was it new in LeMonds era? No.

Agreed, but what you can not deny is this was how the press at that time perceived it. So even if he was far from the first TdF only rider, his focus was seen as spec ial. Keep in mind that the evidence shows that for a GT winner Greg was indeed having short seasons (sorry, scream and shout, it's simply true if compared Hinault, Roche and Fignon.

And Dirtyworks, I lived as a fan through those years. In here with this US view and his hero role in fighting Lance people forget how those years were. Greg most certainly wasn't the greatest of that age and he never was a leader (perhaps 1990). He was for the most part overshadowed by two superior riders. That isn't his fault, but strangely people in here imagine that he was ruling the TdF while he was just very good at following the wheel of the great French stars.

The 1989 upset gave him the great press and the great story, but untill that moment, no, he was not the shining star of cycling as people imagine he was. There was Roche who then had won much more, a Delgado with three gt's (and multiple podia)under his belt. On top there was three time GT winner and genuine multiple monument winner Fignon. Greg certainly belonged in that select group, but he wasn't the leader (and certainly not personality wise).

I'm not a hater, but really, Greg is being portrayed as the second coming of Merckx. He wasn't that good, not even before the terrible accident. He was a fantastic rider, but one of a group of prodigy's, not the greatest of his generation.

 

[rhubroma]

Uhm? When was the last time we saw a really early attack by a contender succeed? I can only think of Chiapucci. We are talking going at three cols to go... that was pretty crazy even in the 80ies.

But on the advantage H. was looking for: he had it at that time and it would have clinched the ticket. Though differences are bigger nowadays even back then TdF's got decided by small margins now and then. 5 minutes was HUGE.

It was uncharacteristic madness. Hinault was an attacker, but he was never that crazy.

My point though was if he were that crazy, it was because he felt in a straight up, one on one battle, Greg was too strong.

At any rate the idea that Greg lacked strenght and was merely lucky is BS. He was the novel American on a French team in his early career who didn't have the support given either Hinault, or Fignon.

Had he been European back then, things would have been different.

His main problem was that he was hopelessly disingenuous.

 

[yespatterns]

The best thing he did for me personally is produce my Poprad. That's my favorite ride still.

 

[Franklin]

My point though was if he were that crazy, it was because he felt in a straight up, one on one battle, Greg was too strong.

Okayyy...

1. Hinault untill then had shown who was boss in an extremely convincing way.
2. Then all of a sudden with five minutes, slapping Greg in the TT and leaving Greg behind in the first mountains ride he gets very scared.
3. So the next mountain ride he thinks" That Greg is so strong, I'll attack three colls out".

Truly, now that seems a bit odd to fit in with both the narrative as Hinaults demeanor.

I'd say Merckxisimmo was the problem. He wanted to win in an epic way as he thought he would crush Greg as he had done till that point. Hubris.

At any rate the idea that Greg lacked strenght and was merely lucky is BS. He was the novel American on a French team in his early career who didn't have the support given either Hinault, or Fignon.

Yeah, Guimard was putting lead weight in his bike in 1984

Had he been European back then, things would have been different.

His main problem was that he was hopelessly disingenuous.

His main problem was that Fignon dwarfed him in capabilities and then he had to combat the best rider after Merckx. And that's supported by the palmares. Again, this is well documented beyond the dramatic movie. Greg was a prodigy, but not nearly as good as his French compatriots at a comparable age.

And he really had the personality of a wet tissue. He was indeed a wheelsucker compared to Fignon. That's not a shame, but it takes away from the starry eyed picture people here have about him.

 

[rkp5097]

Still the only American to win the Yellow Jersey.

 

[Echoes]

True, but you claimed TdF only and you probably also know that Hinault rode himself into form. So the argument still failed.

No. I said Tapie was the first to notice that only a couple of races mattered and only "champions" mattered (in terms of salaries). Paris-Roubaix also mattered in the eighties. You had this CBS documentary every year, which drew Hincapie to cycling ! That is why LeMond also had to feature in Paris-Roubaix. Even featherweight Andy Hampsten.

I know Hinault's palmares by heart and I wouldn't have made such stupid statement.

Greg didn't race for laughs in that Giro, it was not very suited to him.

Yet Visentini and Saronni were more or less the same types of rider as LeMond, weren't they? So what doesn't suit him, normally does not suit either. How can the supposedly best rider of his generation (sic) lose to such riders. They were good but not top riders (in 1986, Saronni was past his prime).

Why pick 1983, the year he rode no GT?

The year he rode for Guimard, too. Supported my claim that La Vie Claire changed a lot...

The 1989 upset gave him the great press and the great story, but untill that moment, no, he was not the shining star of cycling as people imagine he was. There was Roche who then had won much more, a Delgado with three gt's (and multiple podia)under his belt.

What ??? Well if by Roche you mean Kelly and by Delgado you mean Mottet, I agree with you.

 

[rhubroma]

Okayyy...

1. Hinault untill then had shown who was boss in an extremely convincing way.
2. Then all of a sudden with five minutes, slapping Greg in the TT and leaving Greg behind in the first mountains ride he gets very scared.
3. So the next mountain ride he thinks" That Greg is so strong, I'll attack three colls out".

Truly, now that seems a bit odd to fit in with both the narrative as Hinaults demeanor.

I'd say Merckxisimmo was the problem. He wanted to win in an epic way as he thought he would crush Greg as he had done till that point. Hubris.



Yeah, Guimard was putting lead weight in his bike in 1984



His main problem was that Fignon dwarfed him in capabilities and then he had to combat the best rider after Merckx. And that's supported by the palmares. Again, this is well documented beyond the dramatic movie. Greg was a prodigy, but not nearly as good as his French compatriots at a comparable age.

And he really had the personality of a wet tissue. He was indeed a wheelsucker compared to Fignon. That's not a shame, but it takes away from the starry eyed picture people here have about him.

I don't agree with your analysis.

Hinault had a good start to the Tour, but if he had been as you say "so dominant," then there was no reason to attack in such a suicidal way, other than if he still didn't feel his margin of advantage was secure. In fact he feared Lemond in the mountains and that's were he indeed lost the race.

Fignon more talented than Lemond? That's pretty bold. Certainly not as a time trialist, nor as a climber. In 86 Fignon was nowhere, in 89 he road impressively, but Lemond was still on the rebound. In 90 Fignon was again nowhere. Afterward Lemond was unable to cope with Ferrari lead cycling. And by the way, I liked the Frenchman.


I think Guimard always intended to keep Lemond in the shadow of the Frenchmen during his first years "to learn his trade." Fignon and Hinault were indeed precocious, but Lemond's career start, despite being American on a French team, was hardly lackluster. He won the Worlds at 21 and finished 3rd and 2nd in his first two Tours (not surprisingly behind Fignon and Hinault).

That he wasn't focused enough during the off-season and not as professional as were others, only means that we never saw best Lemond, which is a shame. As Guimard once said, Greg was the only rider he ever coached who didn't have to "train" to win the Tour de France.

 

[blutto]

Fignon more talented than Lemond? That's pretty bold. Certainly not as a time trialist, nor as a climber.

....hmm....the 84 Tour was total domination by Fignon, both in the TT's and the mountains ( in fact one of the most crushing Tour wins of modern time )....LeMond in neither 83, nor 84, nor 85, nor 86 ever showed TT dominance like either Fignon in 84 or Hinault in 85 and 86....not to say he wasn't a good TT'er but never dominant ( in fact in several of the TT's from that period he didn't even place in the top 10 ) ....

Cheers

 

[pmcg76]

I don't agree with your analysis.

Hinault had a good start to the Tour, but if he had been as you say "so dominant," then there was no reason to attack in such a suicidal way, other than if he still didn't feel his margin of advantage was secure. In fact he feared Lemond in the mountains and that's were he indeed lost the race.

Fignon more talented than Lemond? That's pretty bold. Certainly not as a time trialist, nor as a climber. In 86 Fignon was nowhere, in 89 he road impressively, but Lemond was still on the rebound. In 90 Fignon was again nowhere. Afterward Lemond was unable to cope with Ferrari lead cycling. And by the way, I liked the Frenchman.


I think Guimard always intended to keep Lemond in the shadow of the Frenchmen during his first years "to learn his trade." Fignon and Hinault were indeed precocious, but Lemond's career start, despite being American on a French team, was hardly lackluster. He won the Worlds at 21 and finished 3rd and 2nd in his first two Tours (not surprisingly behind Fignon and Hinault).

That he wasn't focused enough during the off-season and not as professional as were others, only means that we never saw best Lemond, which is a shame. As Guimard once said, Greg was the only rider he ever coached who didn't have to "train" to win the Tour de France.

Just re-read Slaying the Badger recently and it seems clear that the 86 Tour was over until the suicidal attack from Hinault.

I don't see how if you have a 5 minute lead, why you would go on a suicidal attack if you are scared. LeMond was not that much of a better climber than Hinault. Even when Hinault cracked on that stage, he didn't lose 5 minutes. Hinault must have known LeMond couldn't really attack his team-mate the MJ.

I also don't understand why you are putting forward 86 Fignon, it is 83/84 Fignon that LeMond needs to be compared to. That would be like putting forward 88 LeMond.

Also the infamous non-training/overweight Lemond came from the 89/90 period, not his early years.

 

[rhubroma]

Just re-read Slaying the Badger recently and it seems clear that the 86 Tour was over until the suicidal attack from Hinault.

I don't see how if you have a 5 minute lead, why you would go on a suicidal attack if you are scared. LeMond was not that much of a better climber than Hinault. Even when Hinault cracked on that stage, he didn't lose 5 minutes. Hinault must have known LeMond couldn't really attack his team-mate the MJ.

I also don't understand why you are putting forward 86 Fignon, it is 83/84 Fignon that LeMond needs to be compared to. That would be like putting forward 88 LeMond.

Also the infamous non-training/overweight Lemond came from the 89/90 period, not his early years.

Ok, so then why did he attack? To loose the Tour, or gain an insurmountable lead? I bet the latter, because there can be no other way of explaining suicide. And if the latter, he was weighing the odds and actually thought it important to take the risk. Otherwise he has Greg for a domestique.

In pro cycling certain riders were piloted for certain roles back then in the first years of one's career especially. Lemond was the newcomer. Fignon was the one France was building as Hinault's successor, or rival, however you look at it.

He was damn good, but not stronger than Greg. Perhaps his equal, but not stronger.

End of story.

 

[rhubroma]

....hmm....the 84 Tour was total domination by Fignon, both in the TT's and the mountains ( in fact one of the most crushing Tour wins of modern time )....LeMond in neither 83, nor 84, nor 85, nor 86 ever showed TT dominance like either Fignon in 84 or Hinault in 85 and 86....not to say he wasn't a good TT'er but never dominant ( in fact in several of the TT's from that period he didn't even place in the top 10 ) ....

Cheers

And after?

 

[hfer07]

The 86 matter between Hinault & Lemond has been uncovered endless times, and yet the opinions about it are so biased upon whose rider is your favorite.

From Hinault himself- he's acknowledged countless times that Lemond was the strongest & the fight wasn't of any use at all- therefore The French made Greg "earn" his title & his new "patron" status- that's what folks never understood about that Tour- for Hinault it was his "Last Tour" & his "Last year"-he knew he was on his way out & Lemond was the one to take over-but perhaps The Badger's pride & character always pushed him to conquer, so he chose to go down with "panache" & as a warrior- not as an soon- to-be -retiree alike to kill time with a farewell ride.... Hinault was too much of a fighter to go down like that....

 

[blutto]

And after?

...well, Fignon's star faded due to injury, illness and Ferrari led cycling....and LeMond, on a level playing field, remained a non-dominant TT'er ( and yes he did win two Tours ...and was helped immeasurably by a strange combination of the use/non use of aero bars by key players....)

...that being said if both somehow could have gone head to head in a Tour at the height of their powers I believe Fignon would have prevailed....

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

...well, Fignon's star faded due to injury, illness and Ferrari led cycling....and LeMond, on a level playing field, remained a non-dominant TT'er ( and yes he did win two Tours ...and was helped immeasurably by a strange combination of the use/non use of aero bars by key players....)

...that being said if both somehow could have gone head to head in a Tour at the height of their powers I believe Fignon would have prevailed....

Cheers

As I see it Hinault could have been a six time Tour winner, while Fignon could have been a three time Tour winner, but, but, but for Greg Lemond.

And talk about injury? How about getting pomped full of led in the flower of your career?

It was a different cycling, then. The French burned a very good cyclist's candel wick too soon in having the guy dominate at the Tour so young. After, Fignon was unhealthy and never as good again. With Hinault the Badger never realized that signing a young, incredibly naive talent could have in the end hampered his plans to become the unrivaled Tour victor, but it did.

As I said before, in those days had Lemond been European, he probably would have won at least another Tour and who knows how many classics. And had he not been shot he probably would have won at least another Tour as well.

And without Conconi-Ferrari, his career probably would not have gone off the deap end so suddenly.

A lot of variables, for sure. But this was also part of the legacy. At any rate as to your last statement, I think Greg outperforming Fignon the three times he did, despite these variables, means that your assessment is incorrect. At full power Lemond has an advantage, both in the TTs and in the mountains. Fignon's weak consistancy was always his Achilles heal and this itself was a sign of his athletic limits. By contrast when Lemond was good in the moments of greatest concentration, he was very consistent.

 

[Akuryo]

This thread reminds me of the "N if L" videos from Dave Damesheck. Great stuff to see/read what would/could have happened if ...
I was born in the early 90's and got to cycling because of Ullrich vs. Armstrong. So I don't know much about the time before, but I really enjoy reading about it. Thanks for that.

 

[Echoes]

Evidence that LeMond focused on the Tour of France, all those LeMond-fans strictly talking about it, as if it were the most important race in the calendar...

 

[Franklin]

What ??? Well if by Roche you mean Kelly and by Delgado you mean Mottet, I agree with you.

At the start of 1989 Roche was a bigger star than Greg, because of his incredible 1987 campaign (and his immense amount of other smaller wins).

And Delgado had that moment in time two GT wins under his belt, which at that time wa one more than Greg. Indeed he came surprisingly close in 1989 when he lost time by being late at the prologue (but that helped him a bit in the first TT, so that's anyones guess.

Mottet never was close to a GT win and certainly not a first rank contender compared to the GT winners (Roche, Delgado, Lemond and Fignon).

Kelly was big, but even insiders didn't rank him high for the TdF win, even though he had a vuelta in 1988. He was too vulnerable in the mountains.

 

[Franklin]

And well Rhubombra, even you can't deny that the two years Greg and Fignon competed Fignon was much stronger. 1984 was so dominant that Greg never got to such a level even when healthy and in 1989 Fignon was by far the strongest if being typically french: an arrogant idiot.

So here is the cold hard truth:

Greg was extremely lucky in 1986, even the book is crystal clear about this.
Greg was also extremely lucky in 1989.
And guess what... even in 1990 he was lucky due to Chiapucci being an imbecile and Breukink deciding he would do a one up on fignon and forego a TT helmet.

Even more important: None of these years Greg was a leader, he always was a follower who had to put the weight of the race on someone else's shoulders. He's a great guy, but he wasn't a leader.

Now onto Lemond's career: It's crystal clear that Greg at a similar age simply had less acomplished than Laurent and Bernard. This is not a shame as riders like those are rare, but it's hard to deny. Even at the end of the line Fignon's amount of wins dwarves Greg's. And it's not just TdF and WC, in the classics Fignon is simply of a different level. He won both giro and Tour and podiumed the Vuelta. Also the difference in the amount of stage wins in GT's is just crushingly in the advantage of Laurent.

Greg was a great star, but anyone who maintains he was the prodigy of his generation is in full on denial about the bigger racer: Laurent Fignon. And yeah Laurent spanked Greg as both climber and TT rider several years. Indeed in 1989 Greg would have been bested had they had similar gear. So yeah, saying Laurent was a bigger talent is not only supported by results, it's also supported by the wattages.

Both had their fair share of injuries and both were urtailed by epo, but all in all Laurent wasn't just the more dominant rider, he was also stronger and much more accomplished at different disciplines, namely classics and smaller stage races..

 

[Franklin]

This thread reminds me of the "N if L" videos from Dave Damesheck. Great stuff to see/read what would/could have happened if ...
I was born in the early 90's and got to cycling because of Ullrich vs. Armstrong. So I don't know much about the time before, but I really enjoy reading about it. Thanks for that.

Well... 1980-1990 with a heavy dash of my opinion. People certainly will disagree

1980 Zoetemelk Boring (overpowering winner)
1981 Hinault Boring (overpowering winner)
1982 Hinault Boring (overpowering winner)

1983 Fignon Shocker
1984 Fignon Shocker as Fignon was seen as a Walkowiak/Pingeon who would have to topple Bernard. Actually should rank as Boring (extremely overpowering winner)

1985 Hinault Thriller due to Saint Etienne, but otherwise Bernard was overpowering (and his team was beyond ridiculous)
1986 Lemond Thriller due to the second Pyrenees stage. The Bernard/Greg team was even more ridiculously overpowering than in 1985. We never had such domination again. That's not just because they were strongest, no about everyone at LVC could easily have won that year (okayy slight exaggeration, but not by much). they ended up with everyone in the top ten (again exaggeration, but damn if it didn't look that way^^)

1987 Roche Thriller. The batte between Roche and Delgado was top notch. And Jeff Bernard had a good year (turned out to be his best)
1988 Delgado Boring (overpoweringly strong). Spiced up by the Testosterone twins (Rooks/Breukink) and Delgado's oopsie with a masking agent.

1989 Lemond MEGA THRILLER. Not just the last TT, also Delgado's saga was astonishing.
1990 Lemond Boring Lemond was extremely smart and always seemed in control. He wasn't very strong just ever so smart. Impressive by all accounts if only very colorless.

There's a reason the 80ies hold such sway around here and that goed beyond being the run up to the epo years. Cycling was rife with great talents and strong personalities. Even the classics were a battle of personalities where Kelly had to bully racers like Vanderaerden and van der Poel. Cycling really was a contention of willpower.