Apologies to Greg LeMond

Triathlon Forum
1

I realize this is a message board for Triathlon, but I’m making this comment because I’ve seen many (many!) threads about Lance Armstrong here. And many of those threads have mentioned Greg LeMond in both a positive and negative light.

Count me in as a former Lance fanboy who always criticized LeMond for being not only the epitome of jealousy and sour grapes, but also for being kind of a mentally unstable whacko. While I always respected the guy as a cyclist and believed that he raced clean (at least in comparison to Armstrong and Armstrong’s peers), I gained new respect for him as a person after recently watching the “Slaying the Badger” 30-for-30 documentary.

Jeez, it’s no wonder LeMond was a little paranoid, considering what he endured as a teammate of “the Badger” and as a target of other scumbag Euros who were loyal to Bernie. I’ll tell you what, Lance was a class A-1 butthole, but “the Badger” wasn’t much better.

2

I just added Slaying the Badger to my list in Netflix. It’ll be an interesting watch.

3

(was going to say Spoiler Alert, but it’s hard to spoil something that happened nearly 30 years ago- that said, Spoiler Alert to those who don’t know the backstory)
I will agree with you on the point that Lemond was seen as whiney and a complainer. I will further agree with you that he has since been vindicated in that he was correct re his beliefs re LA. I too watched Slaying the Badger a month or so ago and, I thought it was a great docu with attention that our sport doesn’t normally get and agree with you that the Badger wasn’t who you would want to hitch your wagon too BUT I came away two additional impressiosn of Lemond not far off from my original opinion of him:

  1. He refused to admit in the interview that he was scared back in the 80s when racing with Hinault that people were out to get him. He refused to admit that he and his wife cried about it and other things that were going on. He seems to have such an inability to show a weakness or admit that he was weak but at the same time making a play about how they made him look weak during this time (which leads to my second point);

  2. I really took issue with the way he presented his side of the lead up to “his year to win.” Maybe I am naive to how these races work but it bothered me as he detailed the betrayal of his team and mates that he was just to be handed this TdF victory because he worked so hard for Hinault the year or three before. It seems to me if you want this win and believe you’re the strongest rider to get it, then mash the pedals and get it. If your teammate can take it from you, while he shouldn’t I guess because of your agreement, then he is the stronger rider. I just did not like the way it came out of his mouth that it was his year to win the tour, his turn to win, etc.

I get that this would have been painful, and granted I have not been in this situation but I have won and lost both races and professional achievements. I have worked my ass for both and I’ve known that while I wanted the wins badly, so did just about everyone on the course or in the competition. Maybe I took his words too literally or inferred a negative that was already formed because of my original opinion of him but that was left with me.

That said, I really with the 30 for 30 would do more with our sport because there are some great stories of challenge and fight that I would love to see in that format.

4
  1. I really took issue with the way he presented his side of the lead up to “his year to win.” Maybe I am naive to how these races work but it bothered me as he detailed the betrayal of his team and mates that he was just to be handed this TdF victory because he worked so hard for Hinault the year or three before. It seems to me if you want this win and believe you’re the strongest rider to get it, then mash the pedals and get it. If your teammate can take it from you, while he shouldn’t I guess because of your agreement, then he is the stronger rider. I just did not like the way it came out of his mouth that it was his year to win the tour, his turn to win, etc.

You are missing one critical point - Lemond still felt bound by the creed that says “Don’t attack your teammate.”. That was what hampered him in '85 and was almost his undoing in '86. On this point, Lemons showed his naivety and trusted Hinault (and Koechli). Hinault, OTOH, harbored no such illusions.

Even after Hinault went on his early race attacks and essentially betrayed his agreement with Lemons, Lemond still felt bound to obey the “rules of the road.”. Hell, Lemons was still doping it on their ride up Alpe d’Huez.

Had the arrangement been “We’ll let the road decide”, it would have been a vastly different race.

5

I just watched it last night, great flick. Having grown up being spoon fed propaganda from the Armstrong Era, it really changed my perspective to have that context on LeMond.

6

Hinault - Lemond,
Armstrong - Contador,
Froome-Wiggins

These have been some of the most exciting tours, with strong teams split apart attacking their own team. Love it (as a fan), but I can see being in the soap opera being not that much fun.

7

Here’s a recent article on what he is up to. http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/280231442.html

Can’t wait to check out the new Lemond bikes…

8

Hinault - Lemond,
Armstrong - Contador,
Froome-Wiggins

These have been some of the most exciting tours, with strong teams split apart attacking their own team. Love it (as a fan), but I can see being in the soap opera being not that much fun.

Froome-Wiggins? Exciting Tour? Are you freaking nuts? That Tour featured no legitimate competition and was boring. Froome popped out ahead on one climb when Wiggins had the race well in hand.

9

Hinault - Lemond,
Armstrong - Contador,
Froome-Wiggins

These have been some of the most exciting tours, with strong teams split apart attacking their own team. Love it (as a fan), but I can see being in the soap opera being not that much fun.

Froome-Wiggins? Exciting Tour? Are you freaking nuts? That Tour featured no legitimate competition and were boring. Froome popped out ahead on one climb when Wiggins had the race well in hand.

The excitement was the soap opera off the field of play.

10

If it truly was strongest on the road, do you think LeMond would/should have won in 85? If I recall he had a large gap on Hinault (4+ minutes) and was lied to that it was only :45 and he needed to wait. If it was truly strongest on the road, the 85 race could have been over right there. Cycling team dynamics are waaay more complicated than that. Especially when you’re an American on a French team with a 4 time French winner on your team.

He was clearly manipulated by the Hinault/Koechli/Tapie machine. Koechli looked particularly sketchy in the 30/30 documentary.

11

Koechli looked particularly sketchy in the 30/30 documentary.

Totally. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It wasn’t even funny listening to Koechli try to back pedal explaining that one. And saying after the fact he was introducing revolutionary team dynamics in 86, that was just, very sad. Just man up and admit it.

12

Was never a fan of Lance (not so much the rider, but more the huge pharma assistance and the deceit). But thanks for the suggestion, it was great flick, ESPN has sure nailed it in this series.

13

I just added Slaying the Badger to my list in Netflix. It’ll be an interesting watch.

wait, it’s on netflix? score!

14

I realize this is a message board for Triathlon, but I’m making this comment because I’ve seen many (many!) threads about Lance Armstrong here. And many of those threads have mentioned Greg LeMond in both a positive and negative light.

Count me in as a former Lance fanboy who always criticized LeMond for being not only the epitome of jealousy and sour grapes, but also for being kind of a mentally unstable whacko. While I always respected the guy as a cyclist and believed that he raced clean (at least in comparison to Armstrong and Armstrong’s peers), I gained new respect for him as a person after recently watching the “Slaying the Badger” 30-for-30 documentary.

Jeez, it’s no wonder LeMond was a little paranoid, considering what he endured as a teammate of “the Badger” and as a target of other scumbag Euros who were loyal to Bernie. I’ll tell you what, Lance was a class A-1 butthole, but “the Badger” wasn’t much better.

also, better late than never.

which leads me to this thread from a while back: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4377773;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

15

I just added Slaying the Badger to my list in Netflix. It’ll be an interesting watch.

wait, it’s on netflix? score!

my wife and i watched it last night. i always am amused when she finds some of this stuff interesting…while she’s knitting. the dynamic between greg and his wife was interesting, as he seemed to be stepping on her opinions throughout the interview. btw, she looks significantly better than he does, AND she’s older than him.

hinault may be a conniving a–hole, but at least he didn’t dope. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is how my dad taught me multiplication rules in math.

16

I just added Slaying the Badger to my list in Netflix. It’ll be an interesting watch.

wait, it’s on netflix? score!

Wanky chimes in on the book, from which the *30 for 30 *was drawn

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/shaming-the-badger/

I just finished reading “Slaying the Badger” by Richard Moore. It is the most gripping, exciting, blah, blah, blah, blah about cycling that shows the drama, intrigue, and gritty blah, blah, blah of the human blah. Every time I finish reading a book about bicycles I smash out the windows, kick the dog, and swear that I’ll never, ever read one again. Until the next time.

Then I pass it on to a close friend as the ultimate measure of passive aggression.

Anyway, “Slaying the Badger,” which is well written and not completely uninteresting, reveals some shocking, little known facts about Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond. For example:

Hinault was not a nice person.
LeMond was a whiny little bitch.
Winning the Tour is hard.
Cycling is hard.
Hard races are won by hard men.
Hardy, har, har

The book was so successful that ESPN made it into a full-length motion picture of 30 minutes, which is 29 minutes longer than the attention span of the very smartest football fan. So basically, now that it’s a video, no one will ever read the book.

There’s more, but I won’t spoil it here

17

.

hinault may be a conniving a–hole, but at least he didn’t dope.

Richard Moore’s book, Slaying the Badger, actually discusses a litle bit that Hinault’s knee problems were thought to be from potential abuse of cortisone/corticosteroids.

18

hinault may be a conniving a–hole, but at least he didn’t dope.

That’s one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. I almost had coffee coming out my nose when I read that line.

The only difference between Hinault and Armstrong is that Armstrong needed his team so he made sure that they could perform. Hinault didn’t give a crap about anyone else other than him winning. Oh, and Hinault is French, there is that tiny little difference.

19

Koechli looked particularly sketchy in the 30/30 documentary.

Totally. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It wasn’t even funny listening to Koechli try to back pedal explaining that one. And saying after the fact he was introducing revolutionary team dynamics in 86, that was just, very sad. Just man up and admit it.

Watched this last night and wow Koechli sounded like a total tool!

20

I wish there was some alternate universe we could live in where we could have sporting league with no doping rules (I also think there should be airports without security, I will take the risk) so we could have doped up Greg LeMond the same way Lance Armstrong was and watch them battle it out. If Greg LeMond was able to accomplish what he did without the benefit of EPO, imagine what he could have done with it…