Fearless - Lemond
I know there is already one cycling based post up today, but hey this is my blog and cycling is on my mind right now. If you are new to this site be warned in late June and all of July there is A LOT of cycling related news as MY SUPER BOWL is on.
Now back to the point of this post - Greg Lemond. I watched the OLN show Fearless that documented both the high’s and low’s of Lemond’s career. For those that do not know / remember exactly who Greg Lemond is we offer a quick summary, Lemond was the first American to WIN the Tour De France (TDF). Lemond won it three times (which is a MAJOR accomplishment mind you), but missed two of what could have been great seasons recovering from a wound from a hunting accident. Today, Greg Lemond still has 35 to 40 lead shot’s in his body from the wound.
When I was younger Lemond was one of my hero’s, but today I have far less respect for him due to his consistent statements about how great he could have been, and how things were against him. Yes Lemond could have probably won his first Tour one year earlier, but due to team politics and being lied too by his team he was denyed that chance. His teammate Benard Hinault (now one of the director’s of the TDF) had won four TDF’s and was going for his record tying (at the time) fifth TDF win and Lemond was told to hold back and not go with an attack which would have finished off Hinault, and given Lemond the win.
Armstong did not get his first easily either though as he had just overcame cancer and won in 1999 with a less then stellar USPS team. The now jaugernaut Discovery (USPS based) team was not around Armstrong in his first win, so Armstrong won largely due to personal drive and deciation (i.e. Lemond’s 1989 win), not surruonded by the dominante team as Lemond was in 1986(yes I know all about the team split during the race and how Lemond was a leper in his own team, but they put both Lemond and Hinualt in a place to win, in1999 USPS could not do that) and Armstrong is today.
Moving on, the shotgun accident was unfortunate and ill timed (it came about 10 month’s after Lemond’s first tour win in 1986) and it did take Lemond out of the race at a time that he could have been dominate. It also may have weighed heavier on his body and his third win (1990) may not have come if he had ridden more earlier in his career. There is no doubt that Lemond’s 1989 8 second win over Figinon is one of the top 10 moments in the history of cycling.
My point is that Lemond is a GREAT cyclist, he had a great career, the hunting accident was tragic, but Lemond was no Armstrong. Fignon (a three time winner) and Hinault (a five time winner) were both great as well, but without Armstrong’s dominance Ullrich would be a 5 to 6 time winner as well. On the road Ullrich beats both Fignon and Hinault, thus he also beats Lemond. Armstrong’s competition is just flat better. Basso could possibly beat Fignon and maybe Hinault in the later years (especially 1985 when Lemond could have beat Hinault) Lemond lost in 1991 to MIGUEL INDURAIN the first man to win five Tour De France’s straight (ANQUETIL, MERCKX, and HINAULT all had gap’s in their five wins for various reasons).
I think Lemond’s own words at the end of the show say it all, he says that 5, 6 or even 7 tour wins would not have been enough. Yes Greg they would have. You want to be considered the greatest cyclist to ever ride, and so does every other cyclist, but you are not. Merckx and/or Coppi will always have that distinction. Armstrong will go down as the best grand tour rider to date, but will never be considered the greatest - by his own admission - because he did not win from Feburary thru October - like Merckx espically. Greg, five, six, or seven tour wins would have made you a bigger legend then you are today, but it would have never made you the greatest and it would not have made you happy as you have never seemed happy with your accomplishments and more accomplishments would have solved that inner issue.
It is a internal issue Greg, not a accomplishment issue, that makes you unhappy with your career. Three tour wins makes you a great rider, but not the greatest. In 1991 it is very likely that the rare malcondri infection that Lemond’s was impacting his performance and Lemond did look bad. I would agree with Lemond that the lead in his body probably did devastate his body, and probably caused the malcondri problem. I would also agree that he never was as strong as he was in 1986 (pre accident) again, but cancer impacted Armstrong’s chances from 1997 to 1998 (two years that could have also been great years for him). If Beloki does not crash and break his hip on a high speed downhill Lance would have had more problems winning number four. If Lance crashes into Beloki when Beloki went down then the string is over right there. If Ullrich with a better team then Coast / Bianchi may have been more a challenge as well one year. My point is that Lemond’s summary of his own career is now- if, could have, and should have - which is sad for great cyclist. That if, could have, and should have, shows me that at his core Lemond was never and is still not happy with himself - be it personally or professionally.
Lemond has nothing to be ashamed of, and he did have some tough breaks, but that is life. The fact that he now consistently tries to bring others to his level - great but not legendary, or degrade them - dope powered or lucky, is just a sign that Lemond is a very frustrated and unhappy guy. That is very sad and that is very unfortunate.
American cycling really only has about four or five riders we can call great - Lemond, Hampsten (still the only US rider to win the Tour of Italy and a rider that finished 4th in the Tour De France twice), Hamilton (TDF podium, Olympic gold, and whose status as great is now under question due to doping), Armstrong, Hincapie (great one day wins), with Grewal (1984 Olympic goal in LA) on the outside barely, and with Landis and Jullich trying to join the club. I know Kevin Livingston and Jonathan Vaughters and all the 7-11 supporter riders (including that Canadian Steven Bauer) deserve special mention as well, but they were not great, just good at that time. I say this to make the point that US cycling is not a sport with a great number of legends - Armstrong and Lemond being the only two at the moment - and we need them to not slaughter each other arguing over who is greater. It is interesting that Armstrong has taken the upper road in this and just said that Greg’s statements shocked and surprised him, but has never tried to tear Lemond down as Armstrong knows that without Lemond there is no team 7-11 (first US team in the TDF), which lead to Team Motorola, which became USPS, which is now Discovery.
Do not take this post as being Armstrong is a great guy and Lemond is not. I have major personal issues with Armstrong over his lack of acknowledgement of God and faith in his recovery, and I do pray that Lance will see the flaw’s in his personal stance toward God in the future. Six, or even seven, Tour De France wins makes you a great cyclist, it does make you a forgiven sinner, only Christ can do that. On the bike though Armstrong is the greatest cyclist the US has ever produced though. My point in this piece was to voice my concern over how Lemond has become bitter and frustrated with a career that he should regard as great and for his life that he should consider precious and blessed.
In the end I still hope that someday America can have a cyclist win the Tour that did not almost die, so far we are 0 for 2 (Lemond’s gun shot and Armstrong’s cancer). That would be good for the sport and all involved.
With Landis’s ride back into yellow / the greatest single day ride in the modern history of the tour, and his eventual win in Paris, as well as his other 2006 wins, I think it is now proper to move Landis from the want to be a great in American cycling to a great / legend in American cycling. This win also continues the US trend of American Tour De France winners having major medical problems. Landis fits right in with Armstrong, and Lemond now. A American TDF win still makes you a legend as we only really have about 25 years of MODERN cycling history in this nation. Yes, I do know about all the US success in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.
LeMond may be sour grapes about not getting what he perceives as enough respect.
But to suggest LeMond was no Armstrong? Had to laugh at that. You obviously don’t know much about cycling. Armstrong isn’t remotely in the same class as Hinault, nor would he have fared well head to head against LeMond.
The single biggest factor in Armstrong’s 1999 victory is that none of the top 5 racers of the era were there, nor the strongest teams, including defending champ Marco Pantani.
More importantly, if you review his career, you’ll find it’s marked by three primary characteristics — one, an absence of competition, and two, a team dominance that’s enabled him to race formulaic races that have protected him from spending more than a few hours of every Tour having to go man-up. Go ahead, if you know cycling, review the Tour competitors and go year by year and note that of the top competition, less than half of it has even made it to the start line, and then illness and crashes have eliminated much of the competition before the race really ever got rolling.
Hinault would have forced Armstrong out of hiding, exposed him, and destroyed him. It wouldn’t have been close.
Basso in the same class as Fignon? Hilarious.
You really ought to try to talk to someone that understands what Tour riding is all about and skip the “numbers”. Ranking cyclists solely on the basis of the number of Tours de France is the stuff of ignorant t.v. sports announcers reading from a script about a sport they don’t have the slightest idea, for American audiences full of simpletons that think “well 6 is a bigger number than 5, and Lance has 6 so he must be better than Hinault who only had 5!”
Ullrich has been a nice foil for Armstrong, but he would have been absolutely blown to pieces by the climbers of the mid-80s, including Hinault and LeMond. Surely you recall Pantani blowing him to pieces and taking 9 minutes out of him in a single stage in ‘98? And that was a fit Ullrich weighing in at a full 10 lbs lighter than he’s racing this year’s Tour!
See, these are the things you’re probably hardly even aware of unless you know and understand the sport. There’s not a person who knows cycling who didn’t know that Ullrich was not going to be able to push Lance this year once his doctors released his pre-Prologue weight. He was a full 6 kilos too heavy.
I don’t blame you for being turned off by LeMond. I am too. The whining is unbecoming. Ironically, I thought he handled his confrontation with Hinault better during the actual race in 1986 than he has in the years that followed. He should thank Hinault. Hinault’s attacks on the stages to and from Normandy leading up to the Pyrenees absolutely shattered the climbers who would have been LeMond’s primary competition. He destroyed them and destroyed their teams. So yes, LeMond had to take on Hinault and conquer him, but Hinault made sure he didn’t have to worry about anyone else. As for Hinault, if he had wanted to be a Lance Armstrong type and just win, regardless of whether you’ve demonstrated your full worth or panache, he would have taken that first 5 and a half minute time gap and sat on LeMond all the way to Paris, instead of attacking again the very next day. Again, this is something Americans just don’t understand. Hinault may have sowed the seeds for losing the Tour that day, but he demonstrated his true greatness. Had Hinault not ridden the race that way, LeMond himself never would have had to rise to greatness to win the Yellow jersey and maybe we never would have had the measure of the man. Instead, the truth of LeMond was revealed and he won a Tour that was far greater than any Armstrong has ever won.
Comment by
Anon — 7/22/2005 @ 5:52 pm
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I do not think Hinault had the competition against him that you do. Lemond was a green kid and Lemond could have and should have taken him. No green kid would or could take Armstrong. You are welcome to your opinion though and I appreciate you sharing your views.
As for my lack of appreciation and understanding of the sport, well we will have to disagree on that as well as I have followed cycling for over 25 years and just because we disagree does not mean that I am not educated on the topic. Again you have the right to your view though and that is fine.
Now back to cycling. At the time La Vie was just as dominate of a team as USPS/ Discovery is today, yet they never were able to control the race as well. Cycling is a team sport, if Hinault was not able to dominate the peloton with clearly the best team on the road at the time then to me that shows he was not as dominate as you believe. Yes Ullrich was bested by Pantani, but Hinault was bested Lemond. Armstrong took on both Ullrich (still at the top of his game in 2000 and destroyed him). Pantani threw his best at Armstrong and did not break him and Armstrong gave him the stage win, which Pantani always knew. If Armstrong takes them each at their best and beats them then he is the better rider. True Ullrich has not been the same since 2003, Armstrong broke him and he has never fully recovered. The Bianci / Team Coast - 2003 - was the best chance he had to take Armstrong due to Armstrong lack of focus due to the upcoming divorce and he still could not take him.
Hinault in all of his glory destroyed what I see as lesser fields. The climbs were slower, the descents were slower, the sprints were slower, and the competition was slower. Hinault always seemed on the edge of exploding and Lemond could have killed him in the mountians. Armstong with the excecption of two issues of dehydration has always looked to be in control. Hinault raced at his peak as that is what it took for him to win, Armstrong says controlled and only puts out enough to win. Two different ways to win and both worked for the individual. In the end, you think Hinault, I like Armstrong, they never raced each other and we will never know who was greater, it is just opinion versus opinion.
Again, we will just have to agree to disagree on Hinault v Armstrong, and neither can actually prove the other wrong it is just opinion vs opinion. At least we agree on Lemond in general though, so we do have that in common. In the end though I will always think Merckx is the greastest cyclist. All others - including Hinault & Armstrong - are merely racing for second on the overall podium in my opinion.
Comment by
Frank — 7/23/2005 @ 12:31 am
I agree with everthing Frank wrote until he introduced God into the discussion. I respect and admire Lance for NOT blathering (as so many pampered football players do) about his personal relationship with God. It demonstrates that, one, it’s personal and two, he’s not a hypocrite.
Also, I believe that Greg’s problem was mitochondrial.
Comment by
Vance — 7/25/2005 @ 10:54 am
I agree with most of your points except comparing Fignon to Basso. The man did beat Hinault so you have to give
him credit for being better. As for Basso, we have yet to see his greatness, but he could be the heir apparent next
year with no Lance Armstrong on the field.
As far as God is concerned, I’m glad he kept religion out of it. If he doesn’t acknowledge God, it’s his business. Glad
he separates his personal beliefs and his cycling.
As far as the first comment is concerned. You are giving too much credit to Hinault for Greg’s first win. Its like saying
“Oh credit for Lance Armstrong winning the Tour De France should be given to Marco Patani and Jan Ullrich for “pushing” him to victory”. Give me a break… You have to give credit to the person that won the race.
Hinault was making excuses for attacking Lemond in the 86 tour (in order to go for his win his 6th tour) and losing to
him after he said he would ride in support of him. In the end he wanted to look good losing to Lemond and that is why
he said he was “helping” him by getting the yellow jersey from him.
As far as 7 is better than 5 Tour De France wins. Yes, it is a fair comparison. The other riders that won 5 tried to win more, but couldn’t and were held back by other riders.
Also in the 85 tour (Hinault won over Lemond by only 1′42″) Greg has claimed that his team manager told him to wait
for Hinault, otherwise Hinault would not have won his 5th tour, but it would have gone to Greg intead.
You have to give credit where credit is due, and Lemond winning was because he won it himself, not because Hinault was “helping” him.
Comment by
anon — 7/28/2005 @ 1:55 pm
I can not disagree with you on Basso as he is a unproven factor at this point. As for Hinult, I was not giving credit for Hinult working so hard that he helped Lemond, I think Lemond could have and should have won in 1985, and his team manager lie to him on the road, but in the end Hinult could not and did not win 6 when he tried and Lemond is still a 3 time winner. I think in the Hinult wanted Lemond on his team not to groom him for a win or help Lemond win, but with the hope of keeping his strongest competitor down and limited by having him on the same time. The old idea of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
As for Armstong and God, I think that one’s relationship with God flows into all areas of their life, but I do not personally think you have to mention Him in every conversation to let others know that you are saved. I personally do not go around saying me and God this or God and I that and I would not expect that from others. My issue with Armstrong is that when he is ASKED about his faith he does not acknowledged God. It is not a issue by a hypocrit like many people are that say - “Thank’s God for” X or Y, and then do not live it, but when ask I am / was disappointed that Lance sees nothing of God in his recovery. He says he believes in doctors, medicine, and technology and that God has nothing to do with it. That is unfortunate. It is not about pushing God into all conversations, it is/was about acknowledging God when DIRECTLY ask or questioned about it.
Again though I can understand and respect your views on that as so many just throw God and their supposed relationship with Him into all matter of things that He would not be and is not involved in. That is no benefit to anyone.
Thanks for posting and commenting though and let’s all hope that OLN does a good job of covering Le Tour when it is sans one Mr. Armstrong.
Comment by
Frank — 7/29/2005 @ 3:14 pm
I’ll have to agree with those who find Lance’s refusal to credit God as courageous. He had a widespread form of testicular cancer that is curable with modern chemotherapy and he fought through the treatments with incredible courage, a fight aided no doubt by his unique physiology. There was nothing miraculous about it. It only diminishes his triumph to expect him to give credit to a supernatural being and to judge him for not doing so. Everyone has a right to seek God if they wish, but I think Lance has a right not to.
Also, it’s unfortunate that Lemond can’t seem to help himself - he always comes off like he was cheated out of x number of Tour wins and, yes, jealous of Lance’s success (which is understandable). But dropping back to help the team leader in ‘85 - that’s what a teammate does. And winning in ‘90 - couldn’t Indurain argue that if he wasn’t asked to work for Delgado, he could have won that year.
Comment by
sandy — 7/30/2005 @ 6:31 pm
Look
We all have our opinions, and I will add mine to this. I am a great fan of Greg’s, he was the reason I got into cycling, I liked Lance in
the beginning because he was the next “Lemond” , but with the
media being more powerful these days, he established his own name and possbly with the help of drugs(yes we all have our opinions, but NONE of us knows the real facts) and to bring God into this, the only people who know the truth is Lance and God and MAYBE Greg with his own resources. My point to all of this is to try and look at the positives of all this. Greg comes off as a cry baby to most if not all cycling fans. My thinking is why would he risk his career and status and company by making the comments he did, unless he truly had some knowledge to what he was saying. In other words, he obviously believes his statements, so there MIGHT be some truth(again only Lance knows the truth and God) Remember even today there are approximately 90% of drugs that still canot be tested or traced, maybe Lance knows that and used that to his advantage therefore making Greg’s comments somewhat credible. We can all go onarguing our points, the bootom line is NONE of us knows the facts and our opinions no matter how much we believe to be the truth are no better thans Greg’s. So Greg vs Lance…………… They are both champions of the sport
Comment by
Michael — 9/2/2005 @ 6:52 pm
Michael,
Excellent comments, you are right in the end no one does no 100% and like we said in our original post - both are champions in our eyes and it is bad for US Cycling overall to have the two best cyclist this nation has every produced, and maybe the best two we ever produce, arguing. As for Lance being clean or dirty at this point I have no real sway either way and as you said only Lance and God know the full truth. I would like to think Armstrong was clean, but I do not feel strong enough in the belief to risk anything on the outcome either way at this point. In the end it seems to me Greg lives as could, should, and would have and Lance lives as did, done and gone. Lance just seems happier with both himself and the world (even after cancer) then Greg and that is unfortunate for Greg as he is the one that has to live with his own unhappiness.
As for Greg’s motivates, well I do not think he worries about his status because he is not seen as the single best and nothing but being seen that way will satisfy him. Trek owns most of Lemond bikes so the branding / company is not important to him long term. Johnny come lately US cycling fans, which are most of them, have no idea who Greg is, and never will probably. They will never understand Lemond v Hinault and how Armstrong v Ullrich looks like a petty game of chess compared to the anger that exsisted between Lemond and Hinault.
So, bottom line I think Greg is motivated to be seen as the single best US cyclist ever and since he is not viewed that way he is motivated to destroy the man that is seen that way. Long and short Greg to me seems angry and unhappy with his status and career, both things that he should be proud of as he had a GREAT career. Three TDF wins makes you a GREAT cyclist.
In the end though none of us know the truth like you said, except Armstrong and God, but it is fun to debate and consider and isn’t that really the joy of sport for the fan, the debate, the options, the sub stories and plots.
Thanks for your great comments and thought provoking ideas. We do go away from it with some new thoughts and ideas and that is always good.
Comment by
admin — 9/2/2005 @ 9:16 pm
Who was the greatest comedian in the Bible?
Samson–he brought the house down.
Comment by
neo tech secret — 3/19/2006 @ 2:49 pm
How can I get an RSS feed on this blog? I am new to this and really like the content being discussed here
Comment by
Pet Cages — 3/23/2006 @ 10:07 pm
Click on the RSS feed
Comment by
admin — 3/24/2006 @ 8:07 am
Cool.
Comment by
Dave Johnstonstein — 6/30/2006 @ 10:14 pm
One comment: If you require Lance to thank God for his recovery, should he not also curse him for giving him the cancer in the first place? Or curse him for creating an obviously flawed human anatomy, one the fails the “intelligent design” criteria in uncountable ways? Acknowlegding God as some sort of positive-only force is delusional. God is universal, utterly beyond any foolish human notions of good and evil. If you want to really use that barometer, then God is responsible for all the horrors this world has experienced, which would make him not very worthy at all. The truth is that God had nothing to do with Lance’s cancer OR his recovery. They are just things that happened to one person that we diminutive humans have to try and quantify with silly appelations that allow us to make “sense” of the world. Your faith in such nonsense makes you blind.
Comment by
Greenman — 7/16/2006 @ 1:52 am
I googled Lemond Fearless afer watching the documentary today. What my cable company showed ended with him having won his races and starting talking about feeling more and more tired and then just ended. From these posts I see there was a rare infection - is this ongoing?
I started watching the Tour in the early or mid 80s and saw the Lemond Hinault battles and my impression at the time and now was as many of you say whiney
Joyce
Comment by
Joyce — 7/24/2006 @ 5:06 am
Joyce,
Yes Lemond has a rare form of Mitochondrial DNA problems. It causes him to tire easily due to excessive activity and has a impact on his ability to excerise / be physical.
Greenman,
We will just have to disagree on the entire God thing. We do appreicate you sharing your views thought. Agree or disagree we always welcome your opinion.
Comment by
admin — 7/24/2006 @ 8:40 am
Greg Lemond needs to stop suggesting that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs. Shut up, Greg. Lance won many TDF’s and has NEVER tested remotely positive. Move on. He has more wins. You sound like a whining girl.
Comment by
teke007 — 8/4/2006 @ 8:48 pm