Lemond's Legacy: How Lemond Changed Cycling

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
rhubroma said:
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.
Uhm.. no? Fignon's accendance was absolutely unforeseen. Now this could be due to foreign press, but Greg certainly was a bigger name than Laurent(not strange considering his second place at the WC 1982!) before the 1983 TdF.

And even after that TdF Laurent was seen as a lucky winner who would fade away. It was his national title that was the first warning shot, but he and greg were sent as duo leaders to go after the unbeatable giant.

1984 was as much a surprise as 1983 :cool:
 
Franklin said:
Uhm.. no? Fignon's accendance was absolutely unforeseen. Now this could be due to foreign press, but Greg certainly was a bigger name than Laurent(not strange considering his second place at the WC 1982!) before the 1983 TdF.

And even after that TdF Laurent was seen as a lucky winner who would fade away. It was his national title that was the first warning shot, but he and greg were sent as duo leaders to go after the unbeatable giant.

1984 was as much a surprise as 1983 :cool:
Agreed. guimard was looking more to Marc Madiot to lead the line in 83 after Hinault pulled out before the Tour. (Source, a very old photo book called Tour '83)
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Avoriaz said:
Agreed. guimard was looking more to Marc Madiot to lead the line in 83 after Hinault pulled out before the Tour. (Source, a very old photo book called Tour '83)
...here is a little background to the 83 Tour...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1983, Fignon was a part of the team that helped Bernard Hinault to win the 1983 Vuelta a España. Guimard did not want to send Fignon to the Tour de France, because two grand tours could be too much for a 22-year old rider.[11] When Hinault, winner of four of the five previous Tours, announced that he would not start due to injury, the Renault team was without a team captain. Fignon was added to the 1983 Tour de France selection for the Renault team, and the team decided to go for stage wins, with hopes of having Fignon or Marc Madiot compete for the best debutant category.[12]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....kinda odd that Guimard, given the circumstances, didn't have LeMond, his wunderkind, the greatest talent cycling had ever seen, compete for the debutant category....though that category that year was pretty stacked (see below )...

1.Laurent Fignon (Renault) 105hr 39min 7sec
2.Angel Arroyo (Reynolds) @ 4min 4sec
3.Stephen Roche (Peugeot) @ 21min 30sec
4.Robert Millar (Peugeot) @ 23min 29sec
5.Pedro Delgado (Reynolds) @ 25min 44sec

...and yes Fignon was somewhat lucky to have Simon drop out but then he also wasn't riding the Tour with the entire team behind him until he clawed his way to challenge for the lead....


Cheers
 
Franklin said:
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).
Which smaller wins?

At that time, LeMond was a "has been" (says De Cauwer)

Franklin said:
And Delgado had that moment in time two GT wins under his belt, which at that time wa one more than Greg.
In the 80's I would hardly consider the Tour of Spain a GT, though there had been improvement compared to the sixties. Pretty much what the Tour of Columbia is today (hardly exaggerating)

Franklin said:
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).
He WAS first rank if I believe the FICP ranking. He got the World #1 rank after the 1989 Four Days of Dunkirk. He overthrow Kelly who had been the only World #1 at that ranking since it was created in 1984.

Mottet was slightly younger than the other rider mentioned. He reached his prime by 1988/89. In the 1990's he was significantly the better of LeMond. He would've won the 1990 Tour of Italy if it wasn't for the thing we can't talk about here.

I'm quite fed up with those who argued that Ferrari and Conconi cheated LeMond while LeMond was past his prime by 1991, he was sick, never fully recovered from the accident (as has been mentioned above). Perhaps he lost one or two seasons not more and Mottet was much harder cheated, let alone the much younger rider such as Van Hooydonck or Delion...

Franklin said:
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.
Again, the Tour of France is not everything in cycling. Kelly was consistently ranked World #1 at the FICP ranking between 1984 and 1989 and won the Superprestige between 1983 and 1986 (which stopped in 1987). He was the best rider in that decade. Roche always admitted Kelly was a better rider because of all the classics that he won.

Kelly could climb very well, he still owns the fastest ascent of the Col d'Èze, if I'm not mistaken. He was a top ITT specialist, too. He could have won a GT if he wanted to (in 1983 only Voet's synachten stopped him :D) but he raced from February to October and never focused on a GT. Even on GT's he would fight for every stage, a bit like De Vlaeminck before him and you can't win a GT, that way. He tried to be a Merckx without being a Merckx.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Echoes said:
In the 80's I would hardly consider the Tour of Spain a GT, though there had been improvement compared to the sixties. Pretty much what the Tour of Columbia is today (hardly exaggerating)
It was a GT, though the lesser of the three. Certainly much bigger than a dauphine.

On Roche: He had a bunch of smaller wins (Paris Nice, Romandie) and stages, which he eclipsed with the triple crown in 1987.

On Mottet: He wasn't seen as first rank GT contender (something he indeed never managed) compared to Roche, Delgado and Fignon (who had just won the Giro). Charly's issue was supposed to be his consistency (his engine was said to be not big enough).

On Kelly: I certainly don't deny his greatness, but compared to the others he had a problem in the mountains, especially if it were several stages in a row. But with that palmares it's not as if that is a big blow to the man :D
 
rhubroma said:
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.
Why did he attack? Well in my opinion, there are two options

1. Hinault was doing exactly what he promised and was riding for LeMond, thus he rode as if they were no tomorrow so didn't care what happened. LeMond doesn't believe this, so......

2. As Franklin said and is widely believed by many, Hinault set out to accomplish a 'feat' in the manner of Merckx, his ego took over and he overcooked it, but had the riding for LeMond soft landing option that nobody believed.

Sorry but LeMond was not that good in the mountains that Hinault would have feared losing 5 minutes to him.

I think everybody at that time pretty much believed the Tour was over as a contest after the first mountain stage, even LeMond himself who told his wife it was over.

It is hard to say if LeMond or Fignon were stronger but 84 and 89 were the Tour's in which both were closest to their peak. In 1990 Fignon abandoned on stage 5 before any major stage had even taken place.

Both rode in the 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92 Tours. Fignon finished ahead of LeMond in 84, 91. LeMond of course by the 8 seconds in 89 and Fignon abandoned in 86/90 whilst both abandoned in 92. I would say its pretty even.

Poeple talk of LeMond as a once in a lifetime talent but there were two other similarly talented riders within his own generation and I don't think Roche at his best (85/87) was that far behind either. That was just in the Tour.
 
pmcg76 said:
Why did he attack? Well in my opinion, there are two options

1. Hinault was doing exactly what he promised and was riding for LeMond, thus he rode as if they were no tomorrow so didn't care what happened. LeMond doesn't believe this, so......
I don't know if Lemond was a "once in a lifetime" talent, but do you think Hinault was so sincere?

Just asking.

And the Tour wasn't over after the first mountain stage, because Greg won. People here tend to overlook this fact though.
 
pmcg76 said:
Why did he attack? Well in my opinion, there are two options

1. Hinault was doing exactly what he promised and was riding for LeMond, thus he rode as if they were no tomorrow so didn't care what happened. LeMond doesn't believe this, so......

2. As Franklin said and is widely believed by many, Hinault set out to accomplish a 'feat' in the manner of Merckx, his ego took over and he overcooked it, but had the riding for LeMond soft landing option that nobody believed.

Sorry but LeMond was not that good in the mountains that Hinault would have feared losing 5 minutes to him.

I think everybody at that time pretty much believed the Tour was over as a contest after the first mountain stage, even LeMond himself who told his wife it was over.

It is hard to say if LeMond or Fignon were stronger but 84 and 89 were the Tour's in which both were closest to their peak. In 1990 Fignon abandoned on stage 5 before any major stage had even taken place.

Both rode in the 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92 Tours. Fignon finished ahead of LeMond in 84, 91. LeMond of course by the 8 seconds in 89 and Fignon abandoned in 86/90 whilst both abandoned in 92. I would say its pretty even.

Poeple talk of LeMond as a once in a lifetime talent but there were two other similarly talented riders within his own generation and I don't think Roche at his best (85/87) was that far behind either. That was just in the Tour.
Hinault never would have gained 5 minutes if LeMond was on another team. Hinault used that advantage to break free because favorites knew if they chased then LeMond would get free ride.

It's pretty obvious LeMond was the stronger rider in 86. Does anyone think he couldn't have ridden away on Alpe d'Huez instead of riding simultaneously?

It's hard to gauge whether LeMond was a once-in-a-lifetime talent or better than Fignon due to the shooting. On his trajectory it seems like he would have been a dominant rider.

Even with the injury, it's arguable that he could have one riding for himself in 85. That would have been four tours. While 89 was close, he was clearly the best rider in 90 even at less than 100%.

Roche only won his GTs the year LeMond was out. Yes, he did have his own injury issues so hard to know what would have happened if evenly matched.
 
woodburn said:
Hinault never would have gained 5 minutes if LeMond was on another team. Hinault used that advantage to break free because favorites knew if they chased then LeMond would get free ride.

It's pretty obvious LeMond was the stronger rider in 86. Does anyone think he couldn't have ridden away on Alpe d'Huez instead of riding simultaneously?

It's hard to gauge whether LeMond was a once-in-a-lifetime talent or better than Fignon due to the shooting. On his trajectory it seems like he would have been a dominant rider.

Even with the injury, it's arguable that he could have one riding for himself in 85. That would have been four tours. While 89 was close, he was clearly the best rider in 90 even at less than 100%.

Roche only won his GTs the year LeMond was out. Yes, he did have his own injury issues so hard to know what would have happened if evenly matched.
In fact. To the first statement, the only reason Hinault gained that time was tactical. As you say Lemond couldn't counter, while his rivals couldn't give him a free ride back up.

It was not on one's strenght (or the others weakness) that the situation worked out as it did.

Confirmation of this is what Robert Millar said afterward: that Greg lacked initiative, that instead of Hinault on the attack, it could have been Lemond and that that's what the Scottsman thought "the American lacks to win this Tour de France."

In all fairness, however, Lemond couldn't (though should have, which was my point before about him having been too naive) have imagined that Hinault would have so brazenly gone against what he thought had been a sworn deal between them: namely that that year Bernard would have worked for him.

At the end Lemond was fuming. But in that situation, with all of France delighting in the Badger's apparent triumph, what could he have done about it?

We know what he did do about it though. He demonstrated who was really the strongest in that Tour and reestablished the true hierarchy.

PS. Lemond won the 89 Tour without a team. I think that settles the matter.
 
Franklin said:
It was a GT, though the lesser of the three. Certainly much bigger than a dauphine.
But not bigger than Paris-Nice. Longer but the field was way lesser. And certainly not bigger than the major classics.

I have a book by Marc Jeuniau "La saison cycliste 1981 - les 400 coups de Freddy Maertens" (Gamma sports) in which the author argued that the fundamental structure that shaped the cycling calendar were the major classics, the World championship and the TWO great national tours. Which two? :p

Franklin said:
On Roche: He had a bunch of smaller wins (Paris Nice, Romandie) and stages, which he eclipsed with the triple crown in 1987.
OK thought you meant semi-classics or so. But compared to Kelly's 7 Paris-Nice it's not a lot.

Franklin said:
On Mottet: He wasn't seen as first rank GT contender (something he indeed never managed) compared to Roche, Delgado and Fignon (who had just won the Giro). Charly's issue was supposed to be his consistency (his engine was said to be not big enough).
Consistency is what cycling is all about. His engine was certainly big enough to win a GP des Nations over 90km.

Mottet was born in 1962. He's a bit younger than the riders you mentioned. He peaked between 1988 when winning the Tour of Lombardy in a exceptional manner and 1991. At the turn of the 1990's he was getting the better of all the LeMond, Fignon, Delgado and Roche. He should have won the 1990 Tour of Italy and the 1991 Tour of France but happened what we all know...

Franklin said:
On Kelly: I certainly don't deny his greatness, but compared to the others he had a problem in the mountains, especially if it were several stages in a row. But with that palmares it's not as if that is a big blow to the man :D
Yeah that's the problem when you are racing from March to October and going all out for every stage in stage races. He could climb well when he was on, enough to win the Tour of Switzerland but over a GT and against riders who specialized like LeMond, Roche or Delgado, it's impossible. Had he specialized, he might have won but he would have lost a great deal of his greatness. After all he was ranked 4th at the Tour of France, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
PS. Lemond won the 89 Tour without a team. I think that settles the matter.
Stage 2: Sunday, July 2, Luxembourg 46 km team time trial
1.Super U: 53min 48sec
2.Panasonic @ 32sec
3.Superconfex @ 50sec
4.PDM @ 50sec
5.ADR @ 51sec
6.7-Eleven @ 56sec
7.RMO-Mavix-Liberia @ 1min 14sec
8.Z @ 1min 15sec
9.TVM @ 1min 18sec
10.Helvetia-La Suisse @ 1min 46sec

....so what you are literally telling us is that LeMond even in his weakened post shooting state could "without a team" compete fairly successfully in a TTT ( so for all intents and purposes "he", sans team, finished within a tick of third, against, what, 18?, 20? teams )....so given the results shown above and the "sans team reality", it would appear that in fact you have been right all along and LeMond may well be the greatest TT'er of all time...

Cheers
 
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
LeMond was the first pro I can remember talking about frame stiffness. The predominant attitude prior to that was bottom bracket flex would just act like a spring. People were still racing noodle-ly Vitus 979 frames.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Zigster said:
LeMond was the first pro I can remember talking about frame stiffness. The predominant attitude prior to that was bottom bracket flex would just act like a spring. People were still racing noodle-ly Vitus 979 frames.
...yeah right....and track frames weren't being made with tubes that had thicker side walls to resist bottom bracket flex....and chain stay length wasn't being manipulated to change bottom bracket flex....and special tubing wasn't made for tandems to reduce bottom bracket flex....and the 753 tube set wasn't designed specifically to reduce bottom bracket flex ( and btw the flex characteristics of a Raleigh Team Pro are virtually the same as a Colnago C40, arguably one of the most successful race frames ever built ...and it was no flexy flyer....)....

...and remember that bike frame design does require some level of compliance (spring-like behaviour ) to be ride-able....think back to the early 80's Kleins which were so stiff as to be nearly unride-able for any appreciable distance and scary as hell in any kind of technical descent/sharp corner on less that perfect road surfaces.....

...though I suppose that if your world view is decidedly LeMond-centric your mileage will vary accordingly...

...and btw the pros were very aware of the problems with those Vitus frames, in fact, one of the great lines from that period was...."...the only thing scarier than going up a hill without a Vitus frame ( weight being an important consideration in climbing...and they were relatively light.. ) is going down a hill on one ( their lack of stiffness didn't allow them to track properly...and they had a tendency to delaminate catastrophically...)...."...

Cheers
 
woodburn said:
Hinault never would have gained 5 minutes if LeMond was on another team. Hinault used that advantage to break free because favorites knew if they chased then LeMond would get free ride.

It's pretty obvious LeMond was the stronger rider in 86. Does anyone think he couldn't have ridden away on Alpe d'Huez instead of riding simultaneously?

It's hard to gauge whether LeMond was a once-in-a-lifetime talent or better than Fignon due to the shooting. On his trajectory it seems like he would have been a dominant rider.

Even with the injury, it's arguable that he could have one riding for himself in 85. That would have been four tours. While 89 was close, he was clearly the best rider in 90 even at less than 100%.

Roche only won his GTs the year LeMond was out. Yes, he did have his own injury issues so hard to know what would have happened if evenly matched.
Yes and tactics is a huge part of cycling and that was one of LeMonds weaknesses, he was more of a follower than an attacker. You can't just discount the tactical side of a rider as if it were irrelevant. The Tour is as much about the tactics as it is about being strong. Hinault asserted himself in 86, took control of the race but then overcooked it and more or less handed the race to LeMond on a plate. To me 86 was a Tour Hinault lost rather than LeMond winning.

On Fignon's trajectory he would have been even more of a dominant rider but injury curtailed that.

What would have been great to see, was LeMond, Fignon and Roche going head to head in top shape at the GTs in the late 80s. Sadly it never happened as one or two were always injured or in poor form. I think Roche was slightly below the other two but he still beat LeMond in TTs more than once. LeMond was a better climber though.
 
blutto said:
Stage 2: Sunday, July 2, Luxembourg 46 km team time trial
1.Super U: 53min 48sec
2.Panasonic @ 32sec
3.Superconfex @ 50sec
4.PDM @ 50sec
5.ADR @ 51sec
6.7-Eleven @ 56sec
7.RMO-Mavix-Liberia @ 1min 14sec
8.Z @ 1min 15sec
9.TVM @ 1min 18sec
10.Helvetia-La Suisse @ 1min 46sec

....so what you are literally telling us is that LeMond even in his weakened post shooting state could "without a team" compete fairly successfully in a TTT ( so for all intents and purposes "he", sans team, finished within a tick of third, against, what, 18?, 20? teams )....so given the results shown above and the "sans team reality", it would appear that in fact you have been right all along and LeMond may well be the greatest TT'er of all time...

Cheers
It was a flat freeking course with a bunch of passisti, thus the TTT did go pretty well. Plus half of that result was Greg dragging his team! The mountains, however, was where Lemond was really exposed.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
It was a flat freeking course with a bunch of passisti, thus the TTT did go pretty well. Plus half of that result was Greg dragging his team! The mountains, however, was where Lemond was really exposed.
...a couple of things....first, how is it that other teams couldn't take advantage of " a flat freeking" course and an opponent full of buckshot working overtime ( including one that a certain Miquel Indurain, Melchor Mauri and Pedro Delgado on it..)..

....and two, Greg was never exposed...one of his greatest talents ( as Roche stated at the time in response to a comment similar to yours ) was wheel sucking, in fact, he was, in some circles, known as the second coming of Hendrik Gerardus Jozef "Joop" Zoetemelk, who is the gold standard in that dark art ( also sometimes expressed more politely as a lack of leadership )...as Roche further pointed out LeMond always had the best wheels in the world to follow....

Cheers
 
blutto said:
...a couple of things....first, how is it that other teams couldn't take advantage of " a flat freeking" course and an opponent full of buckshot working overtime ( including one that a certain Miquel Indurain, Melchor Mauri and Pedro Delgado on it..)..

....and two, Greg was never exposed...one of his greatest talents ( as Roche stated at the time in response to a comment similar to yours ) was wheel sucking, in fact, he was, in some circles, known as the second coming of Hendrik Gerardus Jozef "Joop" Zoetemelk, who is the gold standard in that dark art ( also sometimes expressed more politely as a lack of leadership )...as Roche further pointed out LeMond always had the best wheels in the world to follow....

Cheers
Because the time gaps can't be beyond certain limits on the flats. In any case, 51 seconds is a decent amount of time to loose.

Lemond the wheel sucker? Like at the 83 Worlds? The stage to Superbagnères in 86, or Luz Ardiden in 90?

Roche also said Lemond was the strongest rider he ever faced in his career.:p

I realize you have an imsurmountable dislike of Greg, almost as if he did you some personal wrong, but your reasoning is silly.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
Because the time gaps can't be beyond certain limits on the flats. In any case, 51 seconds is a decent amount of time to loose.

Lemond the wheel sucker? Like at the 83 Worlds? The stage to Superbagnères in 86, or Luz Ardiden in 90?

Roche also said Lemond was the strongest rider he ever faced in his career.:p

I realize you have an imsurmountable dislike of Greg, almost as if he did you some personal wrong, but your reasoning is silly.
...ok, my reasoning may look silly, sorry, but I still wonder how an individual "with no team" could place virtually third in a TTT and take significant time out of a team that not only had three top drawer TT'ers, but given what happened in the Prologue, that should have been loaded for bear....the only logical answer is that LeMond, despite all his whining, actually had a team with him ( just as he had powerful team mates in 86 though you would never know it because they were neatly masked by a smoke screen emanating from certain whiny quarters... ) ...

...and yes even the great Joopster occasionally ventured outside the comfort of wheels....it happens....though not enough to hang a theory on .......

Cheers
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Interesting - I've been watching reruns of the 86 and 89 Tour coverage by channel 4. I've never seen it before - I have the US coverage - all of it - recorded. The channel 4 (Brit) coverage was much better.

What is interesting to me is that Lemond does not come off as whiny as I remember him. I do recall talking with other cyclists at the time, and that was kind of our consensus. But most of our coverage was in print. But watching the live coverage - great stuff btw - it seems a different thing. I'm not seeing Lemond as whiny - but definitely a rider who was being put upon.

He certainly had teams both times - but you didn't see them when Greg needed them in the mountains - they were gone. And when Hinault attacked? Everybody was excited for Hinault and pretty dismissive of Lemond - who was a "novelty" player to them, it seems. Especially in 86, but still in 89. Certainly Phil and Paul seem to be very dismissive of Lemond's chances at the start of each tour. (P&P apparently started at channel 4 before they started covering the race for the US.)

Anyway, changed my outlook a shade. If you want to check them out, look for 86 or 89 Tour on youtube. "chickasmith" has got complete playlists of all the channel 4 stage coverage - plus a bunch of other years.
 
pmcg76 said:
Yes and tactics is a huge part of cycling and that was one of LeMonds weaknesses, he was more of a follower than an attacker. You can't just discount the tactical side of a rider as if it were irrelevant. The Tour is as much about the tactics as it is about being strong. Hinault asserted himself in 86, took control of the race but then overcooked it and more or less handed the race to LeMond on a plate. To me 86 was a Tour Hinault lost rather than LeMond winning.

On Fignon's trajectory he would have been even more of a dominant rider but injury curtailed that.

What would have been great to see, was LeMond, Fignon and Roche going head to head in top shape at the GTs in the late 80s. Sadly it never happened as one or two were always injured or in poor form. I think Roche was slightly below the other two but he still beat LeMond in TTs more than once. LeMond was a better climber though.
I agree that Hinault at the point was tactically far ahead of LeMond. And taking the initiative was something LeMond didn't do well at that time. But Greg was 25 and Bernie was 32 with 10 GT wins under his belt. You'd expect that. And still, he attacked on the stage to Superbagners and opened himself up to losing. If he felt he was equal in strength to LeMond, you'd think he'd just sit on his lead. He clearly threw it away.

LeMond by 89 and 90 was much better tactically and rode smarter.
 
woodburn said:
I agree that Hinault at the point was tactically far ahead of LeMond. And taking the initiative was something LeMond didn't do well at that time. But Greg was 25 and Bernie was 32 with 10 GT wins under his belt. You'd expect that. And still, he attacked on the stage to Superbagners and opened himself up to losing. If he felt he was equal in strength to LeMond, you'd think he'd just sit on his lead. He clearly threw it away.

LeMond by 89 and 90 was much better tactically and rode smarter.
well much has been said in this thread that cover many aspect of Greg's contribution's to cycling and it seems that the conversation went to deliberate on the Tour of 86. LeMond is the first amercian to win the tour de france. That changed cycling to this day. The rest is open to interpretation and many here have given their opinion. Here is mine. in 1968 Hinault , winner of 10 tours satisfied his promise to help Greg win his first. More than anybody in the peleton , Bernard believed in Greg's capacity to be a winner. He was among those who also believe in the importance of enlarging the world of cycling by bringing top riders from the US , Colombia and other American countries. That he thought Greg was his successor is well documented, but if people think he was going to help Greg win by being his domestic in 86 , they don't know Hinault at all. Bernard always said that LeMond would have to beat him and as an experienced tactician he rode in 1986 so the passing of the baton would be done with panache. Greg victory was one he earned and Hinault and the team benefited. I forgot the total of their winnings that year but it was big. A fitting last tour for Hinault and a chance to transform cycling for LeMond . Nobody anticipated the shooting accident that followed
 
Jul 26, 2009
44
0
0
rhubroma said:
Because the time gaps can't be beyond certain limits on the flats. In any case, 51 seconds is a decent amount of time to loose.

Lemond the wheel sucker? Like at the 83 Worlds? The stage to Superbagnères in 86, or Luz Ardiden in 90?

Roche also said Lemond was the strongest rider he ever faced in his career.:p

I realize you have an imsurmountable dislike of Greg, almost as if he did you some personal wrong, but your reasoning is silly.
Not to mention Chambery 1989, when LeMond rode Fignon off his wheel repeatedly, in the rain, and when LeMond had a broken wheel himself.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Soloist said:
when LeMond rode Fignon off his wheel repeatedly, in the rain
....gee is this the same Fignon that rode off the front several times on the last lap... didn't look like he rode him off that effectively and that repeatedly if Fignon was still there until the very end of the last lap attacking....

...the last lap as described in Abt's book...

"In that chase group. Fignon goes for it, pouring on the power as they surge up the last climb of the Côte de la Montagnole. LeMond covers him. Fignon tries to go again. Only for LeMond again to cover his move. But the two have broken clear. Then Sean Kelly bridges across and the three behind catch the three in front.

Under the flame rouge and it's Fignon attacking again. And again LeMond is on his wheel. Two hundred metres to go, another attack. LeMond's. Konichev, Kelly and Rooks respond. And finish second, third and fourth. Three seconds later, Laurent Fignon crosses the line, sixth."

...and this from the Columbia Encyclopedia....

" Fignon attacked incessantly in the wet, treacherous finale, but LeMond marked his rival...."...note the term marked but oddly no rode off or dropped ...

...btw would love a reference to the broken wheel story....

Cheers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY