# Tired of the Greg LeMond Story?



## ctxcrossx (Jul 8, 2004)

I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.

Chris


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris



Alot of people are tired of the LA story on OLN - and this is the first year its been on. oh well.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Does anyone else think Bobke and Liggett sort of disagree with Lemond's claim that Hinault "screwed" him that year? They seem to be shrugging it off a bit...

I totally agree with you - especially when contrasted with Armstrong's "ride through the grass field" when Beloki crashed, then bad luck with the musette - he comes back with a vengeance but never complains.
With Lemond - it's like a conspiracy theory. Everyone teamed up on Lemond. First they didn't tell him how far back Hinault was, then he had a flat in a team trial that he would have "surely won", according to Lemond himself, of course. Then the whole peloton was against him when they didn't chase Hinault. Poor, poor Lemond. Tiny violins never stop playing...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris


When you refer to "The Greg Lemond Story" are you referring to an actual programme? If so is it on DVD?

I got into cycling just as lemond turned pro so my reference points are pre the shooting and his comeback. My earliest memory of continental racing was the 1983 Giro di Lombardia. Lemond, in the Arc-en-Ciel jersey, was pipped by Kelly for the win.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*I concur!*

On Saturday night OLN replayed the "Fearless" (I think) episode profiling LeMond.

After the show all I could think was, "what a bitter man." It is 15 or so years later, a wife, kids, a bike company, $$$$$, and a few more Tour wins and cycling victories than me and he complains about getting ganged up on, how he could have won more, and how the entire peloton all of the sudden was doping costing him victories.

I'm not sure what he has to be bitter about (or even sure that he is), but when he talks about cycling and his legacy, he sure seems like it.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jul 8, 2004)

When I refer to the Greg LeMond story, I suppose I'm just referring to the OLN version since it gets repeated every single year in the same exact fashion. I even agree that it's quite an interesting and dramatic story. I suppose the reason that it's annoying is because that this one incident has overshadowed his entire career (at least as far as OLN is concerned). From what I've heard over the years on OLN, I can just imagine that Greg is this bitter old man in a rocking chair who tells this story (and only this story) over and over so everyone will know how he was screwed over. I don't think it's an accurate portrayal. At least I hope it's not. I'd love to see an angle talking about how he was the first american to win the tour, and how be brought america into the world of european cycling. 

I can certainly understand how OLN feels like the Only Lance Network. Although I do feel that it is justified. Look at most of the drama that has happened in the past 7 years, most of them did involve Lance. So it's not really surprising that he is talked about so much, he's been the fixture of the race for that long. I don't necessarily love how much coverage Lance is getting, but at least they can vary the stories. They can talk about specific incidents, his cancer, his battle with the french press, his overall 7 wins, tactics, etc. There's good, there's bad, but it's more than just one story.

Thanks for letting me vent!

Chris


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

55x11 said:


> Does anyone else think Bobke and Liggett sort of disagree with Lemond's claim that Hinault "screwed" him that year? They seem to be shrugging it off a bit...
> 
> I totally agree with you - especially when contrasted with Armstrong's "ride through the grass field" when Beloki crashed, then bad luck with the musette - he comes back with a vengeance but never complains.
> With Lemond - it's like a conspiracy theory. Everyone teamed up on Lemond. First they didn't tell him how far back Hinault was, then he had a flat in a team trial that he would have "surely won", according to Lemond himself, of course. Then the whole peloton was against him when they didn't chase Hinault. Poor, poor Lemond. Tiny violins never stop playing...


Bobke and Liggett weren't party to the dicussions between Lemond & Hinault in 85. Bob was still racing in the US and Liggett was a commentator.

Lemond claims that he was led to believe that in exchange for his support in 85 Hinault would return the favour in 86. He then attacked when there was no need, claiming it was to soften up the opposition, in particular Zimmerman. If you look at the final result in each year it is more likely that Lemond was the stronger in 85 and 86, yet team orders scuppered his ambitions in 85. Zimmerman was 10" adrift by Paris and IIRC Hinaults attack had NO effect.

As far as Armstrong being Mr Stoic and not whining, what about the accusation he levelled at JU regarding attacking him after the crash? It was plain to see that JU didn't press home the advantage but carried on at an even pace.

I don't remember Lemond whining about the lack of wages from ADR in 1989 until after the season was more or less done.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Any story gets 'tiring' on the 90th telling....*



ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris


Try reading your favorite novel over and over again about 35-50 times. How enjoyable is it by the last reading?

Mass Media is wonderful at drumming us over (and over and over) the head with what was originally a compelling story.

On a further note I'd have to say that LeMond's '89 comback win is far more the defining moment of his career and is far more remembered by most than his '86 battle with Hinault. (Also, LeMond basically sat up and gave Hinault the '85 Tour on orders from the team. He basically had an opportunity to win it and gave it away on the road. Try for a moment to imagine being in that situation yourself. I think, contrary to so much that is said by LeMond bashers, that Greg always displayed incredible professionalism, honesty, and integrety throughout his career and has continued to do so in retirement.)


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

zero85ZEN said:


> Try reading your favorite novel over and over again about 35-50 times. How enjoyable is it by the last reading?
> 
> Mass Media is wonderful at drumming us over (and over and over) the head with what was originally a compelling story.
> 
> On a further note I'd have to say that LeMond's '89 comback win is far more the defining moment of his career and is far more remembered by most than his '86 battle with Hinault. (Also, LeMond basically sat up and gave Hinault the '85 Tour on orders from the team. He basically had an opportunity to win it and gave it away on the road. Try for a moment to imagine being in that situation yourself. I think, contrary to so much that is said by LeMond bashers, that Greg always displayed incredible professionalism, honesty, and integrety throughout his career and has continued to do so in retirement.)


LMAO
Sure he has. He's not a bitter old man at all. He loves his fellow American cyclist.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I don't know why everyone thinks Lemond is so bitter-I thought he was just reflecting on his career. If anyone had an injury like his, it would be natural to wonder about what could have been. I don't think he deserves enough credit for being the guy who did the most to facilitate more Americans going to Europe, or for modernizing the sport in general, both by technical innovations and rider salaries/conditions. When he went to Europe it was to ride on a euro team-in 84 he rode in suport of Fignon on Renault. Hinault saw he was obviously the best young rider, so siged him on to keep him under control. being on la vie claire in 85 was the equivalent of a euro being on discovery under Lance. There was no way they were going to let Lemond win in 85, although he was obviously stronger than Hinault and had to wait for him on a pivotal stage. In 86 Hinault did screw him over--unless you think a teammate attacking without notice and then telling papers the race wasn't over isn't screwing you over. On a team where Hinault had total control, the effect was to totally isolate Lemond. If anyone watched that tour, the stress and isolation it had on Lemond/family etc was pretty awful and it was designed to try to make him crack. 

It's true that Lemond was never the same after his injury, and he's probably rigtht to think that had he not been injured he would have dominated 87 and 88. He would have beaten Roche and Delgado. Had he come to the tour with a team around him like Armstrong had, he would have won 85, so doing the math that puts him up around 6+ possible victories. How would anyone feel reflecting on that?


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jul 8, 2004)

zero85ZEN said:


> Try reading your favorite novel over and over again about 35-50 times. How enjoyable is it by the last reading?
> 
> Mass Media is wonderful at drumming us over (and over and over) the head with what was originally a compelling story.
> 
> On a further note I'd have to say that LeMond's '89 comback win is far more the defining moment of his career and is far more remembered by most than his '86 battle with Hinault. (Also, LeMond basically sat up and gave Hinault the '85 Tour on orders from the team. He basically had an opportunity to win it and gave it away on the road. Try for a moment to imagine being in that situation yourself. I think, contrary to so much that is said by LeMond bashers, that Greg always displayed incredible professionalism, honesty, and integrety throughout his career and has continued to do so in retirement.)


I think that's what I'm getting at. I agree with most of what you say (although I do remember hearing about a Lance and Greg tiff). Anyway, I think that someone who knows about the the LeMond era would agree with what you say. I suppose my issue is with OLN retelling the same LeMond story over and over again, not necessarily with LeMond. I think OLN is making LeMond out to be the bitter guy. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know.

Chris


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> Bobke and Liggett weren't party to the dicussions between Lemond & Hinault in 85. Bob was still racing in the US and Liggett was a commentator.
> 
> Lemond claims that he was led to believe that in exchange for his support in 85 Hinault would return the favour in 86. He then attacked when there was no need, claiming it was to soften up the opposition, in particular Zimmerman. If you look at the final result in each year it is more likely that Lemond was the stronger in 85 and 86, yet team orders scuppered his ambitions in 85. Zimmerman was 10" adrift by Paris and IIRC Hinaults attack had NO effect.
> 
> ...


I think the point Bobke or Liggett made was - you have to grab the tour victory, rather than expect it to be handed to you. 

You think if Hincapie wins TdF someone like Popo has a right to complain that he was "promised" a victory a year ago by Bruneel?! 

As to Armstrong's musette victory - Ullrich carried at an even pace because that's the fastest Ullrich can go on that mountain. To their credit - it was Hamilton who put the breaks on the lead group. I don't remember Arsmtrong complaining about it much, except for contradicting some interviewer (Sherwin?) when they said that Ullrich waited for him - he responded with something like "No, actually he didn't". Either way, there's no dramatic 30-minute "inside specials" with teary Armstrong all about how he was wronged by Ullrich for not waiting.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

shokhead said:


> LMAO
> Sure he has. He's not a bitter old man at all. He loves his fellow American cyclist.


Remember, we're getting everything through the media. The media likes a good story, a good quote, etc, etc. 
All Greg has ever done is not be shy about speaking his mind. (I'm not defending him, or making excuses for what he says....but he certainly has the right to speak when questioned.) The current state of affairs in the pro peleton is the result of most in the sport keeping their mouths shut and thus tacitly condoning the creeping corruption that doping has had on the sport.

And not 'loving' Armstrong is not a unique position to be in. For his part Armstrong doesn't seem to dispense a lot of love to many of his former friends, team-mates, co-workers, employees, etc, etc....


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

shokhead said:


> LMAO
> Sure he has. He's not a bitter old man at all. He loves his fellow American cyclist.


I find it even more irritating when Lemond says things like: "I had a flat, but surely I would have won that time trial". 

I think we all know a guy who is like that: "I would have beaten you for sure, but when it was time to sprint, I was in the wrong gear." or "I could have won that race, but I did a 200 mile ride yesterday. And then my stomach was cramping up. And I didn't get enough sleep. And I was training through this race anyways. But I could have won for sure"


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

55x11 said:


> I think the point Bobke or Liggett made was - you have to grab the tour victory, rather than expect it to be handed to you.
> 
> You think if Hincapie wins TdF someone like Popo has a right to complain that he was "promised" a victory a year ago by Bruneel?!



You're failing to take into consideration that LeMond sat up in '85 and gave, or perhaps I should say HANDED the victory to Hinault with the promise that the team would pay him back the next year and work for a LeMond victory in '86. 
LeMond honored his team, his obligation to his team leader, and 'did the right thing' for Hinault. Only thing LeMond may have been guilty of is naivety; for expecting Hinault to honour his word in '86.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*What wasn't mentioned by Greg...*



55x11 said:


> I find it even more irritating when Lemond says things like: "I had a flat, but surely I would have won that time trial".
> 
> I think we all know a guy who is like that: "I would have beaten you for sure, but when it was time to sprint, I was in the wrong gear." or "I could have won that race, but I did a 200 mile ride yesterday. And then my stomach was cramping up. And I didn't get enough sleep. And I was training through this race anyways. But I could have won for sure"


...is the very high probabilty that his bikes were being sabotaged by his own team! Now this may or may not be the case but he did have mechanical problems in both the individual TT's that year. And the incredible stress the team put him under was totally devastating. And would make anyone paranoid and suspicious. Basically there was a complete split within the team. A sort of La Vie Clair civil war so to speak...all the English speaking riders (on the team and within the Tour) siding with LeMond and the rest behind Hinault. There's got to be a great book waiting to be written about that team during that Tour...if you could ever get all the principle players to really talk candidly and truthfully.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

ctxcrossx said:


> I think that's what I'm getting at. I agree with most of what you say (although I do remember hearing about a Lance and Greg tiff). Anyway, I think that someone who knows about the the LeMond era would agree with what you say. I suppose my issue is with OLN retelling the same LeMond story over and over again, not necessarily with LeMond. I think OLN is making LeMond out to be the bitter guy. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know.
> 
> Chris


Fair enough. I'm just so tired of all the Lance bashing, LeMond bashing, Lance loving, LeMond loving that goes on and on on these forums. I'm sure neither of them are saints by any means.

As far as OLN is concerned...they're trying to market to the casual viewer that doesn't have a very in depth understanding of the sport, much less any knowledge of the history of the various riders currently active or those retired (except for Lance, and to a lesser degree LeMond).


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I get tired of anything repeated way too often, but you have to admit, it's a great story. The Tour de France hasn't had that much intrigue for a long time. Here's to catfights! Meow.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris


Lemond was up against alot winning the TdF for himself. No one wanted an American to win it.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

bas said:


> Lemond was up against alot winning the TdF for himself. No one wanted an American to win it.


Yet inspite of him being the rider who ended the French winning era, he is still well regarded in Frence.


----------



## SeeVee (Sep 25, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> As far as Armstrong being Mr Stoic and not whining, what about the accusation he levelled at JU regarding attacking him after the crash? It was plain to see that JU didn't press home the advantage but carried on at an even pace.
> 
> .



OK. That's one. And besides, LA has stated publicly several times that he was wrong about it and has since apoligized to JU. 

Lemond is crybaby.


----------



## cyclodawg (Jul 1, 2003)

ultimobici said:


> As far as Armstrong being Mr Stoic and not whining, what about the accusation he levelled at JU regarding attacking him after the crash? It was plain to see that JU didn't press home the advantage but carried on at an even pace.


Ullrich definitely did not attack on Luz Ardiden. Armstrong has apologized to Ullrich for saying that Jan did not hold up for him, and now says he believes Jan did hold up. It's not clear from the TV footage, but what you certainly do not see is Jan (or anyone else) sitting up in his saddle, and Hamilton felt that Jan and others were going without Armstrong. Of course, Ullrich's gripe is that Lance attacked after the group had help up for him, as if etiquette required everyone to ride nicely together all the way up.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*so?*



bas said:


> Lemond was up against alot winning the TdF for himself. No one wanted an American to win it.



When the Hampster won the Giro, he ultimately wound up living in Italy. The French are a bit resentful, fine. BUT, as Bobke said last night, "Hey, here is sight the French are getting used toGeorge (AN AMERICAN)) donning the Yellow Jersey. Hey, its only been 8 years running ha ha ha.

Lemond had a remarkable talent and when that talent ran its course, it was over. Period. 

Good on George and this TDF could be one of the better ones in quite a while.


----------



## cyclodawg (Jul 1, 2003)

bas said:


> Lemond was up against alot winning the TdF for himself. No one wanted an American to win it.


That's true. He was the real groundbreaker for American cycling. He deserves credit for that. He probably was also a better, more natural stage racer than Armstrong. Lance, I think, only finished the Tour once before 1999. I think Lemond finished in the top 3 every time he was in it up until 1991, despite helping Hinault those first two years. He certainly could have put together a streak of 6 or 7 straight wins, and he probably could have won other grand tours in the process. He was that good a stage racer. 

But he did choose to hunt recreationally, and 1997 was not the first time he came close to a career threatening hunting accident (I believe Hinault actually nearly hit him once). It's not exactly like receiving a cancer diagnosis, in other words. 

What Lemond should do is congratulate Lance on doing something that he, himself, was very capable of doing, and work with Lance to build on the birth of American competitive cycling. Instead he bitterly takes swipes at Hinault, Armstrong, and whoever else has conspired against his greatness and who has had the nerve to overshadow him. 

The fact remains that while Lemond was hunting with friends in the spring after his first Tour win, Armstrong spent springs after every Tour win climbing the Pyranees preparing for the next Tour. That's why Lance won 7 straight and is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 cyclists of all-time, while Lemond is a great champion with a somewhat tragic story, who is now showing himself to be as big a whiner as he ever was a bike rider.


----------



## stamp adams (Apr 16, 2006)

I can't resist getting in on this. Although I was riding back then, I knew nothing about professional riding. Then an American wins the TdF. Earlier this week, I watched the LeMond story. Then recently, I read about the LeMond aquisation that Armstrong had threatened LeMond, his wife, and his business. What I came away with, I believe LeMond is bitter. He is bitter about 85 and 86. He is bitter about 87 although he won. He is certainly bitter about the 2 years he lost due to his gun shot wound. He was betrayed in 86 for sure. He was betrayed in 87 and was cautioned by some outside his own team to never leave his equipment alone, never eat anything prepared by someone else, never drink water from an unknown human source. Had he not had to deal with this, had he the support of his team, he might have won 7 or 8 times. He had the ability to achieve what Armstrong did achieve. He might have had the noteriety that Armstrong got. If only he had gotten the same luck and support. It is unfortunate that he doesn't have the personality to go along with that talent. I think LeMond would be easy not necessarily to dislike, but it wouldn't break your heart to see him fail if you were part of his team. As now, it is too easy to listen to him and hear whinning and bitterness and miss his point. That point is, "I could have been the greatest".


----------



## Rsix (Oct 18, 2005)

I am sick and tired of hearing Lemond whine about how he got screwed over by the world and was conspired against by everyone. He even blames lead molecules for conspiring against him. 

Sure he was a great rider and sure he got screwed by Hinnault......um......20 years ago! 

Hey Greg....stick to making mediocre bicycles and shut up. :mad2:


----------



## laotsu42 (Feb 21, 2004)

55x11 said:


> Does anyone else think Bobke and Liggett sort of disagree with Lemond's claim that Hinault "screwed" him that year? They seem to be shrugging it off a bit...
> 
> I totally agree with you - especially when contrasted with Armstrong's "ride through the grass field" when Beloki crashed, then bad luck with the musette - he comes back with a vengeance but never complains.
> With Lemond - it's like a conspiracy theory. Everyone teamed up on Lemond. First they didn't tell him how far back Hinault was, then he had a flat in a team trial that he would have "surely won", according to Lemond himself, of course. Then the whole peloton was against him when they didn't chase Hinault. Poor, poor Lemond. Tiny violins never stop playing...



don't forget they were all doping too *sigh*

allthough if my career ended like lemonds did (no i'm not a racer just a potter) i'd be *****y for quite some time ....


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

laotsu42 said:


> don't forget they were all doping too *sigh*
> 
> allthough if my career ended like lemonds did (no i'm not a racer just a potter) i'd be *****y for quite some time ....


While I agree with others that his bitterness is understandable - it still doesn't make it any more attractive.

I am bitter about a lot of things, but I keep it to myself (or people very close to me).


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Rsix said:


> I am sick and tired of hearing Lemond whine about how he got screwed over by the world and was conspired against by everyone. He even blames lead molecules for conspiring against him.
> 
> Sure he was a great rider and sure he got screwed by Hinnault......um......20 years ago!
> 
> Hey Greg....stick to making mediocre bicycles and shut up. :mad2:


when did lemonds become mediocre?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

cyclodawg said:


> The fact remains that while Lemond was hunting with friends in the spring after his first Tour win, Armstrong spent springs after every Tour win climbing the Pyranees preparing for the next Tour.


This is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long while. There's 365 days it's ok for champions to have a life.

francois


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

You guys are watching reruns of 'fearless'. Quit your whining and turn off the TV.

Complain about something current fer-cryin-out loud.:cryin:

francois


----------



## laotsu42 (Feb 21, 2004)

blackhat said:


> when did lemonds become mediocre?


here here
i own a lemond and i have to say it is anything but mediocre 

don't hate him either i just think he needs to chill and enjoy things 

and the dudes company allways made good bikes


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

blackhat said:


> when did lemonds become mediocre?


A bit pricey for a fancy Trek.


----------



## SHVentus (Mar 15, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> I don't know why everyone thinks Lemond is so bitter-I thought he was just reflecting on his career. If anyone had an injury like his, it would be natural to wonder about what could have been. I don't think he deserves enough credit for being the guy who did the most to facilitate more Americans going to Europe, or for modernizing the sport in general, both by technical innovations and rider salaries/conditions. When he went to Europe it was to ride on a euro team-in 84 he rode in suport of Fignon on Renault. Hinault saw he was obviously the best young rider, so siged him on to keep him under control. being on la vie claire in 85 was the equivalent of a euro being on discovery under Lance. There was no way they were going to let Lemond win in 85, although he was obviously stronger than Hinault and had to wait for him on a pivotal stage. In 86 Hinault did screw him over--unless you think a teammate attacking without notice and then telling papers the race wasn't over isn't screwing you over. On a team where Hinault had total control, the effect was to totally isolate Lemond. If anyone watched that tour, the stress and isolation it had on Lemond/family etc was pretty awful and it was designed to try to make him crack.
> 
> It's true that Lemond was never the same after his injury, and he's probably rigtht to think that had he not been injured he would have dominated 87 and 88. He would have beaten Roche and Delgado. Had he come to the tour with a team around him like Armstrong had, he would have won 85, so doing the math that puts him up around 6+ possible victories. How would anyone feel reflecting on that?


+1, my feelings exactly.

Lemond seems much more the down to earth, family man than LA. I would bet GL would be a much better friend than LA could ever hope to be. And, I'll bet he's a great dad & husband. 

I've just started reading Daniel Coyle's book " Lance Armstrong's War". So far it's a very insightful, great read. I'd highly recommend it for any cyclist/cycling fan. It portrays LA exactly as I've seen him over the past 8-9 years. I surely don't hate LA, he's a great talent, but he's always seemed the type that was a user or taker (not of drugs, but of people, situations, circumstances), a kniver, wheeler-dealer. A take no prisoners CEO. Someone was only a friend, team mate, wife, whatever, as long as it served LA & LA's purposes. When the relationship needed to be two-way, or whenever LA was no longer being served, it was over. Look at Heras. Before he left, he was a hero & LA repeadly sang his praises, "a really special talent" & the keystone of LA's 2002 win. But a few days after he left the team, Heras was referred to as Roberto Who?

I think that history will be kinder to GL than LA in the long run.


----------



## Rsix (Oct 18, 2005)

WHOA......guess I started something. I apologize for any Lemond owners who were offended by my "mediocre" comment. That was meant to be more of a snipe at Mr Greg Lemond. I'm sure they're fine bicycles. 

:9:


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

zero85ZEN said:


> You're failing to take into consideration that LeMond sat up in '85 and gave, or perhaps I should say HANDED the victory to Hinault with the promise that the team would pay him back the next year and work for a LeMond victory in '86.
> LeMond honored his team, his obligation to his team leader, and 'did the right thing' for Hinault. Only thing LeMond may have been guilty of is naivety; at expecting Hinault to honour his word in '86.


tough luck. 

Just heard that scientists who work with chimps, dolphins, dogs define intelligence as the "ability to foresee actions of others".


----------



## axebiker (Aug 22, 2003)

With the difference in media "afflicting" us about 1000x more now than 20 years ago, I wonder if Mr. LeMond would be singing the same song had this all gone down in the "here and now" rather than "back in the day"? I think he's really jealous that Mr. Armstrong had 24/7 coverage, where he had it on weekends only - "ABC's Wide World of Sports". Maybe one should be careful what they wish for...

Also, he seems to be throwing unwarranted punches at Lance whenever he gets a chance. WHY??? What does he have to gain for it??? I once respected him - now I hope he moves to France - AND STAYS THERE!!! He could go to work for the French press - he's been throwing around the same crap they have for years now. 

I guess it's the "curse of the limelight", and once your flame becomes a flicker, you'll do anything to get that back. Pro athletes have such FRAGILE egos. It's really amazing, and actually, quite sad. Greg needs to STFU and go back to building HIS legacy and quit worrying about others'. He's been removed from the scene for over a decade now -- he claims to have all this inside info on what is happening - I really wonder what he really knows? HIS generation is responsible for beginning what is now an epidemic in pro cycling, and pro sports in general.

Move on Greg. Let people remember you for the good you did, not the whiny prima donna you're becoming.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Question for all LeMond...*



55x11 said:


> tough luck.
> 
> Just heard that scientists who work with chimps, dolphins, dogs define intelligence as the "ability to foresee actions of others".


haters or fanboys or Lance haters or fanboys: How is it you're all able to form such a sure opinion of certain people (and understanding of events surrounding said people) whom (I'm assuming, obviously) most of us haven't met in person.
Everything we know about these guys is given to us through the media. 
For my part I try not to form too definite an opinion about the merits of a person I've never personally met or spent a bit of time getting to know.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

zero85ZEN said:


> haters or fanboys or Lance haters or fanboys: How is it you're all able to form such a sure opinion of certain people (and understanding of events surrounding said people) whom (I'm assuming, obviously) most of us haven't met in person.
> Everything we know about these guys is given to us through the media.
> For my part I try not to form too definite an opinion about the merits of a person I've never personally met or spent a bit of time getting to know.


With all due respect. These bike celebrities are public figures and they're really not going to open up to us in person. I've met a few bike legends and like many, I am awestruck as they shake my hand and say hi to me.

I learn a lot more by following their actions and results, reading their interviews, reading their blogs, books etc. I think it is perfectly valid to form an opinion on them. Of course the more info the better when forming an opinion about someone. 

fc


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

zero85ZEN said:


> haters or fanboys or Lance haters or fanboys: How is it you're all able to form such a sure opinion of certain people (and understanding of events surrounding said people) whom (I'm assuming, obviously) most of us haven't met in person.
> Everything we know about these guys is given to us through the media.
> For my part I try not to form too definite an opinion about the merits of a person I've never personally met or spent a bit of time getting to know.


Quite the opposite. I am sure had LeMond been my neighbour, or if I met him at a cocktail party, I would think only the best of him. "Such a nice, humble guy"... and so on
As long as I don't mention Hinault or Armstrong, that is.

Lance comes off "edgy" in a way too - but you sort of expect that from the ultra-competitive, obsessive personality. But somehow it doesn't annoy me the way LeMond's bitterness does.

Your mileage might vary. Enough of this psycho-analysis.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

francois said:


> With all due respect. These bike celebrities are public figures and they're really not going to open up to us in person.
> fc


Nowhere in my post was I implying that they would.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

zero85ZEN said:


> I think, contrary to so much that is said by LeMond bashers, that Greg always displayed incredible professionalism, honesty, and integrety throughout his career and has continued to do so in retirement.


Agree 100% :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

BTW - Anyone read Bobke 2? I was hoping he'd say a little more about the LeMond
Hinault thing today.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*I read it a couple summers ago...*



epic said:


> BTW - Anyone read Bobke 2? I was hoping he'd say a little more about the LeMond
> Hinault thing today.


...right after riding with Bobke as a matter of fact.  
And you're right...he did mention that whole episode in the book didn't he. I'll have to browse through it again....
Thanks for jogging my memory.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*there's no force-feeding*



zero85ZEN said:


> haters or fanboys or Lance haters or fanboys: How is it you're all able to form such a sure opinion of certain people (and understanding of events surrounding said people) whom (I'm assuming, obviously) most of us haven't met in person.
> Everything we know about these guys is given to us through the media.
> For my part I try not to form too definite an opinion about the merits of a person I've never personally met or spent a bit of time getting to know.



Why do a few posters insist on this, "it's all fed to us through the media" business? The show I was watching and the interviews I have read all had direct quotes or lengthy diatribes from Lemond himself. It's not as if Phil Liggett is saying, "Lemond is a bitter old jerk." The opinion is formed b/c of Lemond's own words.


----------



## Blazin' Saddles (Feb 18, 2006)

I have a friend who rode in the Tour with Louison Bobet before Bobet won. Bobet claimed the Tour was "insanity" and that he would never ride it again. Then he went on to win three in a row. 

Louison Bobet was born in the Brittany province of France on March 12, 1925. Bobet was a great champion and a complete rider.

Bobet was the first rider to win three consecutive Tour de France titles. He did this in 1953, 1954, and 1955. He was also 3rd in the 1950 race and won the Mountains Jersey that same year.

Bobet was 2nd to Gastone Nencini by 19 seconds in the 1957 Giro d’Italia. Bobet also won the Mountains Jersey in 1951.

Bobet won the World Championship Road Race in 1954, was 2nd in 1957 and 1958, and was 5th in 1950.

Bobet won Paris-Roubaix in 1956, was 2nd in 1951, and 3rd in 1955.

He also won the Milan-San Remo in 1951, the Tour of Flanders in 1955, and the Tour of Lombardy in 1951. In all, he won four out of five of cycling's monuments.


----------



## jamz50 (Oct 7, 2005)

[

The fact remains that while Lemond was hunting with friends in the spring after his first Tour win, Armstrong spent springs after every Tour win climbing the Pyranees preparing for the next Tour. That's why Lance won 7 straight and is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 cyclists of all-time, while Lemond is a great champion with a somewhat tragic story, who is now showing himself to be as big a whiner as he ever was a bike rider.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Lemond was home in the US recovering from a wrist injury due to a fall in an early season race!


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, but Greg just sound like a bitter old man. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris


i'm tired of hearing people complain about it.

hinault tried to screw lemond. it was an anti-american conspiracy.

he had to go out and beat his own teammate


----------



## SeeVee (Sep 25, 2005)

epic said:


> Agree 100% :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Surely, you cant be serious. (And I will call you Surley.)


----------



## chrisbaby (Feb 20, 2004)

*ironically...*



zero85ZEN said:


> You're failing to take into consideration that LeMond sat up in '85 and gave, or perhaps I should say HANDED the victory to Hinault with the promise that the team would pay him back the next year and work for a LeMond victory in '86.
> LeMond honored his team, his obligation to his team leader, and 'did the right thing' for Hinault. Only thing LeMond may have been guilty of is naivety; for expecting Hinault to honour his word in '86.



I think that Hinaut would have had more respect for Lemond if he in fact did attack and had gone on to win, as well as the rest of the cycling community. Look at Roche in 87. He beat Visentini despite orders and much to the dismay of the tifosi. If he had honoured cycling tradition he wouldn't have one the triple crown of cycling that year.

You are defined by the decisions you make in life. Ultimately, it was Lemond who made the decision to wait


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

kpcw said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> LeMond has many regrets and clearly he has issues with many around him. Did he not have a huge falling out with his own father ?
> 
> ...


Nice to see you offering, repeatedly, counseling for LeMond. Maybe you should try and contact him personally and offer your advice.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

chrisbaby said:


> I think that Hinaut would have had more respect for Lemond if he in fact did attack and had gone on to win, as well as the rest of the cycling community. Look at Roche in 87. He beat Visentini despite orders and much to the dismay of the tifosi. If he had honoured cycling tradition he wouldn't have one the triple crown of cycling that year.
> 
> You are defined by the decisions you make in life. Ultimately, it was Lemond who made the decision to wait


And to do so would have been to totally ignore a direct order from his employer. Cycling is a team sport. LeMond was a teammate. He did what was directed of him by the DS. Hinault should have been eternally grateful that LeMond remained loyal to him in '85.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

kpcw said:


> True and you are right, but now LeMond is sitting there, a few spokes broken and repeating, "THEY LIED TO ME, THEY LIED TO ME....(repeat 20x)"
> 
> I am trying to think of another athlete who left his/her sport and became so bitter ? John Unitas? Tanya Harding? Darth Vader?


Jan Ullrich?


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

There's a couple of things Greg has said that can't be argued with. First that Hinault and the French La Vie Claire riders tried to throw him under the bus in 1986. Those of us who remember it as fans, as well as Andy Hampsten, Steve Bauer, and Phil Anderson have all confirmed the story. Now, I know why Hinault did it, and it seems like Greg does too, but it was a pretty sh!tty thing for a friend to do. 

The second is the claim that "everything changed in 1991." Again, for those whose memory of the sport goes back that far, that's clearly true. Riders who were there, and who were known to be clean (Greg and Andy come to mind) have confirmed that. Guys who were off the back the year before were flying up climbs 2-3 km/h faster than stage winners the year before. There's no way that traing and technology can account for the difference. The difference was EPO. The new era of doping began then. Remember, the previous era's drugs, mainly amphetamines and steroids, were by then easily detectable, as Pedro Delgado found out in 1988. I think that the Delgado affair and Paul Kimmage's book (he got death threats, too, so it's not unprecedented) shut things down for a couple of years, until the doctors got back ahead of the testers.

As to LeMond's fight with Lance, I don't know. I've met Greg, and he was a really nice guy. He never struck me as a man who would make things like that up, but I have no idea. Certainly, saying nasty things about your employer's biggest advertising draw can't be good for your bottom line... not that Greg's hurting for money. And remember, he never said that Lance was dirty, he only said that he shouldn't be working with Michele Ferrari. Which I absolutely agree with. Ferrari was a pimple on the sport, and in a just world, he'd have had no clients at all.

--Shannon

--Shannon


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

I'm not tired of the Lemond story, actually without the Lemond story there wouldn't have been a LA story. Now that one needs a rest. So watch the thing and learn . Learn about cycling, Hinault, Hampsten, Bauer and all the other riders that came in before YOUR HERO L.A.
Yes there was cycling before Lance and there's going to be cycling after the cyclism.....


----------



## SJBiker (Jan 22, 2004)

ctxcrossx said:


> I just have to say that I'm so tired to hearing "The Greg LeMond Story." With all the great races he has had, all that that he has done, all I keep hearing about, year after year, is how he got screwed over by Hinault. I agree that it's a compelling story, *but Greg just sound like a bitter old man*. Maybe they should try a different story angle next time, maybe something a little more fresh. If I were him, I would want all of my successes to define my career instead of this incident.
> 
> Chris


I have to agree. All I've ever heard Lemond say is 'This happened to me and that happened to me, and I lived through it and I am the father of American cycling, and my legacy will be blah blah blah..." and then he NEVER seems to end his talking without throwing in how Lance is below him, less than him, somehow won't ever live to be like him, as if there's some great mythological battle between them. I'm neutral on whose better (thats another thread), but I must say that Greg Lemond seems quite the self-absorbed, arrogant and bitter old man.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*really.*



SJBiker said:


> ... I am the father of American cycling, and my legacy will be blah blah blah..." and then he NEVER seems to end his talking without throwing in how Lance is below him, less than him, somehow won't ever live to be like him, as if there's some great mythological battle between them...



wow. you've seen some interviews I've missed. I've never heard lemond say that LA is all or any of what you quote as "below him, less than him, somehow won't ever live to be like him".


----------



## SJBiker (Jan 22, 2004)

blackhat said:


> wow. you've seen some interviews I've missed. I've never heard lemond say that LA is all or any of what you quote as "below him, less than him, somehow won't ever live to be like him".


ok so I guess I was a bit overboard. But what I dont' understnad is that Lemond claimed that while he was happy with his career with all its ups and downs, and was satisfied in what he had accomplished, LA would never be able to do that, and that he'd always be seeking the next thing to conquer and he'd never be satisfied like Lemond himself was. Quite a statment for him to make about another cyclist. Certainly sounds bitter to me. Or at least a means of deflating whatever baloon he thinks LA is.


----------



## esbike (Jul 4, 2005)

*lemonds last comments*



SJBiker said:


> ok so I guess I was a bit overboard. But what I dont' understnad is that Lemond claimed that while he was happy with his career with all its ups and downs, and was satisfied in what he had accomplished, LA would never be able to do that, and that he'd always be seeking the next thing to conquer and he'd never be satisfied like Lemond himself was. Quite a statment for him to make about another cyclist. Certainly sounds bitter to me. Or at least a means of deflating whatever baloon he thinks LA is.



He also said at the end of that segment that he could have won 10 TdFs and it wouldn't have filled the void inside him. He made it sound like he had some larger psychological issues that he has dealt with his whole life. I think that is where all the unpleasant comments he comes up with must come from. He hasn't been satisfied with his life or his accomplishments. He gives off a very negative vibe and think that is what people who say he is bitter are responding to. It is sad that he can't be more positive about the sport and the successes of the American cyclists that he inspired.


----------



## stamp adams (Apr 16, 2006)

A little understanding is necessary here. What Greg was saying was this. The joy of racing (and winning) gave him so much that it wouldn't have mattered how many TdF he won, having to retire left a void that nothing else can fill. He commented on how he sees Lance struggling to find something to take the place of riding - but he adds, he won't find it. He is proud of his accomplishments and yes, he does look back on what might have been, with some disappointment (understandably). He hopes that people can look at him as sort of a father of American cycling. And he hopes that he can be remembered for that. And I will give him that, and forgive him his inability to express his disappointment w/o sounding like a person with mental problems.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jul 8, 2004)

esbike said:


> He gives off a very negative vibe and think that is what people who say he is bitter are responding to. It is sad that he can't be more positive about the sport and the successes of the American cyclists that he inspired.


I completely agree with this. And going back to the OP...I understood that his battle to win his first tour made for a great story, but I was tired of hearing about it, and it did make him sound bitter. I can say that I was elated to hear another story, one far less told on OLN a few days later about his story of the aerobar and the ITT. Now that was a great story!

Chris


----------



## ziggurat22 (Jul 13, 2005)

zero85ZEN said:


> As far as OLN is concerned...they're trying to market to the casual viewer that doesn't have a very in depth understanding of the sport, much less any knowledge of the history of the various riders currently active or those retired (except for Lance, and to a lesser degree LeMond).


This, I believe, is the point we have to remember about OLN and cycling coverage in general. OLN is going to treat every year's coverage as if a whole bunch of viewers who are new to cycling are tuning in for the first time. Someone new to the sport may not be familiar with the race, tactics, history, the main players, or trials and tribulations of a figure such as Greg Lemond. Every year they will go through and explain everything, mainly for these viewers. For the seasoned cyclist and cycling fan, this may seem like a drag, but for the new viewer, it's possibly fascinating and insightful. That's how you get new people into the sport, by giving them information and background so that they become familiar and informed, thus making the sport more enjoyable. Voila, new fans, bigger fan base, more coverage of racing.

I've seen this type of complaint before as it follows in the same vein as the complaints about bike shops and the existence of cheap, entry-level bikes. The bottom line is that the hard core cyclist is not the target audience of any of the above. Bike shops are there to cater to a) people who don't know about bikes and need help picking one, as well as equipment b) people who can't wrench their own bikes. This is why most shops (at least by me in NJ) are not knowledgeable about a lot of things regarding cycling and virutally never have a good selection of higher end parts. Same with cheap, Chinese-made frames. Not for you guys, for newbies and people not heavily into cycling (read: most people).


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I have to agree. He needs to stop patting himself on the back; stop feeling sorry for himself; stop comparing himself with LA; and stop with the baseless allegations about LA. He has detracted from his own legacy. :17:


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

ctxcrossx said:


> I completely agree with this. And going back to the OP...I understood that his battle to win his first tour made for a great story, but I was tired of hearing about it, and it did make him sound bitter. I can say that I was elated to hear another story, one far less told on OLN a few days later about his story of the aerobar and the ITT. Now that was a great story!
> 
> Chris


... and it's actually a story that LeMond refutes in person - or at least some of the details. While the press has loved to tell the story of LeMond trying these revolutionary aerodynamic handebars and ending up victorious because of them, if you ask him personally about that ITT, he'll tell you that the aerobars and helmet he used that day later tested in a wind tunnel showed that he actually LOST time because of them - about 7 seconds in fact (he won the tour by 8 seconds that year). In particular, his friend had designed a helmet that he agreed to wear that was not only not aerodynamically sound, but it was like wearing a sail on his head. And, as far as them being revoultionary, aerobars has been used for many years, including 5 years earlier in the Olympics.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*Ullrich let up.*

Actually thats wrong Tyler was already well and truly dropped if Ullrich had not let up how is it that Tyler got back up to tell him to wait. Ullrich waited or Lance would have had to work alot harder to catch up and mostly it would have come down to the TT.



55x11 said:


> As to Armstrong's musette victory - Ullrich carried at an even pace because that's the fastest Ullrich can go on that mountain. To their credit - it was Hamilton who put the breaks on the lead group.


----------

