Slaying the badger

[rshimizu12]

Greg maintains that he was the team leader in 86. Greg was asked in Bicycle Guide who will lead the team in the 86 TDF. Greg answered: Who ever is strongest shall lead the team. After Hinault won the TT and put 5 minutes on the field in the opening Mt stage he proved that he was strongest at that point. So in fact Greg negated the promise that Hinault made in the prior year.The odd thing is why Hinault chose to attack on the 2nd Mtn stage. Hinault had enough of a lead that he could have rode defensively to win the rest of the TDF..

If Greg is the great rider that he always talks about then he should have won more of the classics or other grand tours. In my mind Greg was the one rider who started this trend towards specializing in certain races. This trend has become much more pronounced in recent years. We have basically seen the outcome of all of this in this years TDF where weather was wetter than in recent years. The number of crashes are a direct result of riders that are not complete. Both Froomes and Contadors crashes are a prime example of this. I have always maintained that a TDF winner has the responsibility to lead in a manner that reflects well and as role modle to other riders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo

 

[kurtinsc]

Greg maintains that he was the team leader in 86. Greg was asked in Bicycle Guide who will lead the team in the 86 TDF. Greg answered: Who ever is strongest shall lead the team. After Hinault won the TT and put 5 minutes on the field in the opening Mt stage he proved that he was strongest at that point. So in fact Greg negated the promise that Hinault made in the prior year.The odd thing is why Hinault chose to attack on the 2nd Mtn stage. Hinault had enough of a lead that he could have rode defensively to win the rest of the TDF..

If Greg is the great rider that he always talks about then he should have won more of the classics or other grand tours. In my mind Greg was the one rider who started this trend towards specializing in certain races. This trend has become much more pronounced in recent years. We have basically seen the outcome of all of this in this years TDF where weather was wetter than in recent years. The number of crashes are a direct result of riders that are not complete. Both Froomes and Contadors crashes are a prime example of this. I have always maintained that a TDF winner has the responsibility to lead in a manner that reflects well and as role modle to other riders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo

Lemond may not have won a ton of classics, but he had some finishes of note.

2 WC wins, 2 2nd place finishes.
2nd in Lombardia
3rd in Liege
4th in P-R
2nd in MSR


Up until he got shot, Lemond tended to race about the same type of schedule as anyone. His teams tended to be "superteams" before that accident, so he often rode in support in many of the races. He still got some pretty solid results while not the leader ('84 tour, 3rd when teammate Fignon won, '85 Giro, 3rd when teammate Hinault won and '85 Tour 2nd when teammate Hinault won).

After coming back, his schedule was much lighter. But I'm not sure if that was so much a matter of "specialization" as opposed to his body only being able to handle so much with shotgun pellets imbedded in his chest cavity.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Greg maintains that he was the team leader in 86. Greg was asked in Bicycle Guide who will lead the team in the 86 TDF. Greg answered: Who ever is strongest shall lead the team. After Hinault won the TT and put 5 minutes on the field in the opening Mt stage he proved that he was strongest at that point. So in fact Greg negated the promise that Hinault made in the prior year.The odd thing is why Hinault chose to attack on the 2nd Mtn stage. Hinault had enough of a lead that he could have rode defensively to win the rest of the TDF..

If Greg is the great rider that he always talks about then he should have won more of the classics or other grand tours. In my mind Greg was the one rider who started this trend towards specializing in certain races. This trend has become much more pronounced in recent years. We have basically seen the outcome of all of this in this years TDF where weather was wetter than in recent years. The number of crashes are a direct result of riders that are not complete. Both Froomes and Contadors crashes are a prime example of this. I have always maintained that a TDF winner has the responsibility to lead in a manner that reflects well and as role modle to other riders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo

Hinault was trying to bag the tdf with one more dominating mountain finish. If he had put more time into Lemond, Lemond would have been forced to ride in support. With out the added time, Hinault might have had to sit back if Lemond attacked just like Lemond did for Hinault. 5-6 years earlier, Hinault probably could have pulled off that long attack. Hinault probably knew that Lemond was the better rider and needed to bag the thing and it blew up in his face. If Hinault had been on a different team, I think Lemond could have won with margin. Hinault wasn't strong enough to ride away from Lemond by himself and Lemond at that point was a better climber and tt specialist. He crashed in the final time trial and still only lost to Hinault by 25 seconds. Take into account the time lost and the constant paranoia he lived under over someone tampering with his bike or food and finding out someone had offered to crash Lemond for Hinault. That kind of stress makes recovery hard.

 

[perico]

Related question.

Who thinks Hinault may have won in 1987 if he had not retired? He was still the best TTer in the field when he retired, and though he may not have been able to hold Delgado's wheel in the high alps, do you think he could have stayed with Roche, minimizing Delgado's gains and overtaken both of them in the final TT? Or would he have put enormous time into both riders in the first long TT, which was over 80 kms?

 

[B_Ugli]

I watched this on ITV4 last night - it was interesting to see what happened prior to 1990/91 as that is when I first started watching Pro Cycling on TV regularly and following it.

What I found conflicting was the claim (repeatedly made over the years) made by Lemond, Hampsten and others that the speeds went up so much in the early 90's due to "preparation" that it shortened their careers.

I find myself asking if Lemond, Hampsten etc would have been coming to the end of their careers anyway notwithstanding EPO and that this just hastened their retirement. In fact from memory the 1991 tour saw Lemond having a number of shoe related problems and illness during the race, his form (and weight) was up and down right up until he eventually retired.

Indurain was up their in the 1990 tour so it was no surprise to see him win in 1991.

However some commentators take the view that the EPO generation really started around the 93-94 period.

 

[kurtinsc]

I think by '94 it was widespread. But it probably started entering in '91 and '92. When you see riders like Rominger and Riis who were about the same age as Lemond and Hampstein come out of nowhere in the '92-'94 range... well that says something.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to talk about in this forum or not though.

 

[murali]

Greg maintains that he was the team leader in 86. Greg was asked in Bicycle Guide who will lead the team in the 86 TDF. Greg answered: Who ever is strongest shall lead the team. After Hinault won the TT and put 5 minutes on the field in the opening Mt stage he proved that he was strongest at that point. So in fact Greg negated the promise that Hinault made in the prior year.The odd thing is why Hinault chose to attack on the 2nd Mtn stage. Hinault had enough of a lead that he could have rode defensively to win the rest of the TDF..

If Greg is the great rider that he always talks about then he should have won more of the classics or other grand tours. In my mind Greg was the one rider who started this trend towards specializing in certain races. This trend has become much more pronounced in recent years. We have basically seen the outcome of all of this in this years TDF where weather was wetter than in recent years. The number of crashes are a direct result of riders that are not complete. Both Froomes and Contadors crashes are a prime example of this. I have always maintained that a TDF winner has the responsibility to lead in a manner that reflects well and as role modle to other riders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo5_iNEjRo

The main problem in your post is in red.
both were freak accidents. could have happened to anyone.

I dont understand "specializing". Not every rider can win all sorts of races, unless they want permanent membership in the clinic.

 

[laurel1969]

I watched this on ITV4 last night - it was interesting to see what happened prior to 1990/91 as that is when I first started watching Pro Cycling on TV regularly and following it.

What I found conflicting was the claim (repeatedly made over the years) made by Lemond, Hampsten and others that the speeds went up so much in the early 90's due to "preparation" that it shortened their careers.

I find myself asking if Lemond, Hampsten etc would have been coming to the end of their careers anyway notwithstanding EPO and that this just hastened their retirement. In fact from memory the 1991 tour saw Lemond having a number of shoe related problems and illness during the race, his form (and weight) was up and down right up until he eventually retired.

Indurain was up their in the 1990 tour so it was no surprise to see him win in 1991.

However some commentators take the view that the EPO generation really started around the 93-94 period.

Having watched from the late 70's through, I think lemond is right. It wasn't that they were getting old and dropped by the new top guys....they were getting dropped by nobodies.

Personally, I think there were some people using EPO before the 90's. Stephen Roche being one of them. Conconi was using blood doping in the 80's, and it was this that lead to an understanding about the benefits of epo use.

 

[B_Ugli]

I think by '94 it was widespread. But it probably started entering in '91 and '92. When you see riders like Rominger and Riis who were about the same age as Lemond and Hampstein come out of nowhere in the '92-'94 range... well that says something.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to talk about in this forum or not though.

I think you are probably right a cursory look at Lemonds results show that after the Tour DuPont in 1992 the results dried up, Hampsten on the other hand continued to deliver.

Psycologically it would really grate if you were of the calibre of lemond when these 'cart horses' metamorphasised!


I reckon it's appropriate to this topic as it's mentioned in the documentary and pertinent to the end of Lemonds career however the mods have a track record of being a bit childish about ped issues straying outside the appropriate place!

 

[B_Ugli]

The main problem in your post is in red.
both were freak accidents. could have happened to anyone.

I dont understand "specializing". Not every rider can win all sorts of races, unless they want permanent membership in the clinic.

In addition Lemond frequently rode Paris Roubaix later on in particular to support Duclos Lassalle when at Z and Gan. He certainly rode in the years when winning Le Tour.

Can you imagine riders doing that now?