Road Bike Racing - Greg Lemond

This means I'm old, but when it happened I was still using Oxy on my facial .......blemishes.

Does'nt it seem that Greg Lemond could have been the Legend that Armstrong is turning out to be? Here's my reasoning.

The year (86?) when Hinalt won his fifth, Lemond could have taken it. No one can deny. He let Hinalt have it.

The following year he took it from Hinalts' cold dead hands (even though Hinalt said he'd help him and didn't.)

The next TWO YEARS, out with gun wounds.

COMES BACK to win two more straight with buckshot still in his gullet, and in the process changes time trialing forever.

Imagine if he would have taken 86 (like he clearly could have) and had'nt got shot.

I see it as six in a row.

Am I the only one who sees this. Just curious. A little what if never hurt anyone.

thats what makes winning it 5 times so hard, so much can happen both between and during races to defeat you.
imagine if lance hadnt had cancer, would this have been his 7th in a row? or maybe he wouldnt have one any at all?
imagine if they hadnt held indurain back for so long, maybe lemond would have only won one or 2.
imagine if eddie merckx hadnt hurt his back in a car accident, or hadnt taken time off from the tour would he have won 10?

hehe fun to talk about and debate, but you can what if anything :)

"What ifs" are fun. If you look at the history of the Tour there are guys who won 1 or 2 before WWI and then win another one after the war. Same thing before and after WWII. Perhaps they could've won 6 or 7 and we wouldn't think so much about 5.

85 was the year LeMond held back for Hinault. Hinault was the team captain and LeMond had to hold back. At one point this year Beltran was the virtual leader on the road when he got into a break. He sat up and came back to LA. If he hadn't would we be congratulating him for his victory?

LeMond remains impressive for me b/c he won before and after his brush with death. Also his 8 sec. last stage win in 89 will always be the ultimate finale. How many would he have won? You like his chances in 87 or 88.

OTOH if Indurain rode for himself he probably beats LeMond in 90. The "what ifs" never end.

The reason I pick Lemond to "what if", is he's the only other succesfull American cyclist and I first started loving cycling because of him. When I meet young cyclists, many seem to believe that Lance was the first and hardly know of Lemonds comeback story.

Additionally, ( and note, I think the world of Lance ) Lance went to the top BECAUSE of his illness. even by his own admition, he said he would never had won if it wasn't for his dreaded cancer. It changed him physically in ways diet could never have accomplished due to his dense torso muscle mass from triathaloning. Lemond was on top and was CUT DOWN because of his accident and nothing physically good came of it. He had to fight everything to get back on top and was probably never as good, but still won two more.

I agree that Lance is and will always be the better, but more than the outward I have always been interested in the inner of the man. "Did he have inside what it takes?" "Could he have pushed his body to do 6". I think about; "What is Lemond thinking after watching the tour this year?" He never had the publicity and the name recognition that Lance has gotton. I think he's got to wonder about what might have been. I think HE would be glad someone has pondered it as well.

Just so you know how I was thinking. Appreciate the response

I suppose anything is possible, if.

Then again, if grasshoppers had machine guns birds wouldn't mess with them.

Dave

If wishes were peanuts...
If elephants could fly....

Actually, I'm not sure I agree that LeMond was never a celebrity. Like LA he was on Sports Illustrated and was Sportsman of the Year. The Tour got a whole lot more coverage during his years than it had before or after (until LA started winning) and he has a successful bike business even if it was bought out by Trek.

Younger riders don't know him, but then younger riders don't know what downtube shifters are either. In Europe cycling is a sport that lives on its tradition/history. That doesn't appear true in the US. European fans would never have forgotten someone like Major Taylor, wheras in the US the current stars are the only ones to have ever turned a crank. I'm not sure I'm complaining, that's just the way it is. Baseball seems to be the only sport where the past stars still feature in current conversations.

The test will be how public the retired LA stays (assuming he wants to). My guess is that in the US he'll disappear pretty quickly. A retired cyclist won't have the marketing power someone like a retired Michael Jordan does. That's just the American market.

It's odd that the two most well known American riders both had their careers interrupted by some personal crisis.

i remember LeMond as being pretty well known at the time too, and really his name is still known. i think if you ask people who dont follow cycling at all to name some american cyclists i think most will name lance, LeMond, and maybe eric hieden. people under 20 who dont follow cycling may not know the name but i think most people over that age do. i didnt follow cycling at all when he won his first tour, but i remember it being a huge deal in the media, since he was the first american to do it.
i'm also not sure i'd say Lance was a better cyclist, i'd say they were both great.
in my first post i was just trying to point out that winning the tour 5 times involves a lot more than being a great cyclist. it also involves things like being lucky enough to not get shot while on a hunting trip during the off season :).
so much can happen its just very difficult to put together 5 great seasons in a career.

again this does make for a fun debate :)

Originally posted by Walter
"What ifs" are fun...The "what ifs" never end.

What if I took up cycling at an earlier age and started racing...you all might not have ever heard of Lance Armstrong...hmmmm...oh, to dream...I love those "what ifs" :)

I your aunt was a man you'd be your cousin

gentlemen, stay smooth please...:beer:

What if Greg hadn't gotten the gunshot wound? Would he have been as focused?

Doesn't matter. Greg was very good for US cycling in Europe. He had a excellent personality, a French last name, the other riders (mostly) liked him, he was a great spokesman (pun intended), and the made-for-Hollywood tour victories. All of which went a long way toward changing the attitude of the Europeans about Americans in the peloton. Many (well, Andy Hampsten and Phil Liggett) still say he's the most talented cyclist they've ever known.

I think Lemond really could have been a "contenda" for five.

And hasn't it taken awhile for anyone to top his TT top speed? Or am I mistaken on this?

Yes. It would have been busted this year in the final time trial if it had'nt been for the rain.

Just a note, I had Lemonds Cycle Gitane and it aint no cream puff to todays standards, and he did it on that bike. At least I think it was that bike.

I believe Lemond was the equal of Armstrong in talent but he was never as strong after his shooting accident. Winning two Tours after that was a tremendous feat.

He was unlucky that he was number two to at La Vie Claire in '85, when if he had stayed at Renault, he could have challenged Hinault at the head of a strong squad (in Fignon's absence). He moved for the money- a lot of it- so shouldn't complain, nor continue this endless campaign about the Roche break, when he could/should/would have won the race that year. The moral and factual basis for his claim is paper-thin.

I do feel that the depth of competition in the 80's was much greater than at present, which further validates the achievements Greg actually had- and I find it sad that Armstrong's efforts unnerve his predecessor so significantly. I'm not sure how much of this is competitive spirit and how much sour grapes...........

LeMond is as much a legend as Armstong is/will be IMO.

Lemond is a legend, no doubt.
But it´s surprising that a lot of youngsters never heard of him at all.
There are lots of legends which most people don´t know.
:(

he isn't a legend if the new generation doesn't know who he is

Originally posted by Flaneur
I believe Lemond was the equal of Armstrong in talent but he was never as strong after his shooting accident. Winning two Tours after that was a tremendous feat.

He was unlucky that he was number two to at La Vie Claire in '85, when if he had stayed at Renault, he could have challenged Hinault at the head of a strong squad (in Fignon's absence). He moved for the money- a lot of it- so shouldn't complain, nor continue this endless campaign about the Roche break, when he could/should/would have won the race that year. The moral and factual basis for his claim is paper-thin.

I do feel that the depth of competition in the 80's was much greater than at present, which further validates the achievements Greg actually had- and I find it sad that Armstrong's efforts unnerve his predecessor so significantly. I'm not sure how much of this is competitive spirit and how much sour grapes...........
Competition and equipment is far better then 80's.

Remember that for his 3 tour wins, Lemond only won 5 stages total, and his 3rd win he didn't wear yellow till the very final stage (the infamous TT victory over Fignon).

While he was a great rider, and a truly gifted time trialist, he never quite dominated his time like Indurain and Armstrong have theirs, that's the difference I see.

Shokhead-

'Competition'.......... I'm saying that Bernard Hinault, Laurent Fignon, Pedro Delgado, Stephen Roche, Phil Anderson, Robert Millar, Sean Kelly, Lucho Herrera, Miguel Indurain, Charly Mottet and Jean-Francois Bernard were a class above some of the guys wearing team leaders' numbers in recent Tours. Make that light years ahead, in some cases;)

My quick list contains five Tour winners, two five-time champions, a triple crown winner (one of two in history)and a bunch of Vuelta and Giro successes. I could have dug up more names- but I thought that list was sufficient!

Greg Lemond raced against all the above guys with distinction. All the year round, when he was younger. It could be argued that without his gunshot wound, he might have dominated the era between Hinault and Indurain. I'm not indulging in that speculation- Greg does it so well:) I am contrasting the quality of riders Greg opposed, with the rivals of Lance. In this year's Tour, there were only two starters who had previously won the race.

-don't really want to belabour the point any further. Competition in the 80's was severe.

....and who's arguing about equipment?

Originally posted by Flaneur
Shokhead-

'Competition'.......... I'm saying that Bernard Hinault, Laurent Fignon, Pedro Delgado, Stephen Roche, Phil Anderson, Robert Millar, Sean Kelly, Lucho Herrera, Miguel Indurain, Charly Mottet and Jean-Francois Bernard were a class above some of the guys wearing team leaders' numbers in recent Tours. Make that light years ahead, in some cases;)

My quick list contains five Tour winners, two five-time champions, a triple crown winner (one of two in history)and a bunch of Vuelta and Giro successes. I could have dug up more names- but I thought that list was sufficient!

Greg Lemond raced against all the above guys with distinction. All the year round, when he was younger. It could be argued that without his gunshot wound, he might have dominated the era between Hinault and Indurain. I'm not indulging in that speculation- Greg does it so well:) I am contrasting the quality of riders Greg opposed, with the rivals of Lance. In this year's Tour, there were only two starters who had previously won the race.

-don't really want to belabour the point any further. Competition in the 80's was severe.

....and who's arguing about equipment?
Who arguing at all?Its just mo like you have yours.Nobody on this end is arguing.

I'll take the bait and be the Devil's Advocate for a minute - an interesting discussion for sure

It's pretty much impossible for Armstrong to race against many former champions of the TDF when out of the last 9 tours before he won, 2 were won by a man who retired before 1992, 5 were won by a man who retired before 1997, 1 by a man who retired before 1998, and 1 by a man who just had his ears clipped and hears voices in his head (whom Armstrong handily destroyed before, anyways).

That leaves Jan Ullrich, and I'd take Ullrich again almost any rider from the 80's. Let's not forget that when he was 24 he already had a TDF title, and he's tacked on Olympic gold, a Vuelta and would have a couple more Maillot Jaunes except for a certain Texan. He's never finished lower than second on the Tour podium in 6 starts, and is truly one of the great champions of our time, hard luck aside.

And really, let's be realistic here. Giro titles in the 80's meant something. Maybe even the mid-90's. But during Armstrong's reign it's been the bastard stepchild of stage racing, and important to Italians and the doping police, that's about it. The Vuelta is now the second most important race in the world, and how many of the recent champions of that are even fit to hold Armstrong's jock (where are you Aitor Gonzalez?) Hell, Roberto Heras is his #1 domestique.

Lastly, listing Indurain as someone Lemond beat for his tours is sort of like listing Armstrong as someone Indurain beat. At the point in time Indurain was finishing 37th and then 10th ... well, he wasn't a major force. It wasn't until he got a bit older that he showed how dominant he could be.

All being said, Lemond raced against a more even field than Armstrong has. There is no question the 80's was more competitive overall, but I'm not sure if that it just wasn't the talent being more even than recently with two tremendous champions. Lemond was a phenomenal rider, and almost a dead on bet for 5 tours if he hadn't been shot, maybe more. Don't dimish Armstrong's achievements though, Lemond doesn't need that to shine himself. Many of us wouldn't be riding if we hadn't seen him on TV as young children, and seen that you could race a bike as well as throw a baseball and compete in sports. There's no reason to try to put down one American champion to make the other look better, they're both brilliant.

Vad........

I think we're on the same page here. I think Greg is really jealous of what Lance has achieved and the status he has in the wider world of sports. I think we're agreed that Lance can do no more than beat the riders who turn up each year. We also have no argument about the depth of talent around whan Greg was trying to win.
As for diminishing the achievements of riders, there are two strands of opinion, aren't there? One says that history will finally be written and subjective rankings produced. The other says that all such intergenerational speculation is pointless. Just for fun, I like to play "what if?" Doesn't mean proper comparisons can be drawn across the eras- but there's no harm in trying:)

I think the great champions exerted a stifling command over the peloton- call them Patrons, or whatever. Riders who rode in the wheels of Hinault, Merckx or Coppi were diminished, however accidentally, by this process. Armstrong has done it recently, to the extent that few other than Ullrich believe they can win the Tour. Indurain influenced riders similarly; can you remember their names now? Rominger, then who else?
The difference for Lemond was that he rode in the interregnum between Hinault and Indurain, never quite establishing himself as the new boss, in part due to his injury. Fignon was similarly erratic and injury-prone, as was Roche- but each aspired to the domination that Armstrong has carved out. None of the great late eighties riders became Tour Gods and each played a part in stopping the others. I'm sure Greg would love us to say that three tours competing against the riders of that era were the equivalent of five Indurain or Anquetil victories, but again, I'll leave that stuff to him:) My take on Armstrong's rank in posterity is that he is diminished by his single-mindedness, as is Indurain. I like to see my legends winning in April and October, as well as July!

I like Ullrich as much as you do: he is a big-time athlete and racer. Shame he's lost some good years to immaturity. I think he matches up well against some of the eighties guys, but I reckon Hinault and Indurain (the nineties guy)would have crushed him psychologically, Fignon would have killed him in the mountains and Roche would have exposed his tactical frailty.....

Hey, these are just opinions. How many of my eighties list do you think would have exploited the '03 version of Lance? And was this year Lance's greatest achievement in France, winning against the odds?

In Armstrong's case of single mindedness, remember he wasn't always like this.

My first recolection of Lance Armstrong was this 21 year old Texan kid in Norway just ripping everyone's legs off as he pulled on the Rainbow Jersey - still one of the greatest displays of simple power you'll ever see in a bike race. I was 13, and I knew then that I wanted to race bicycles. Lemond got me started, Armstrong showed me Americans could stick to anyone. His greatest race was probably the World's in 1998, where he served notice he was back from cancer, or maybe the huge breakaway into Limoges after Casartelli's death.

The point is that Armstrong was a very good rider before cancer, and really he was a classics guy - not a stage racer. Obviously, that changed in 1999, and the story is so well known at this point it's almost anti-climatic. He was a good one day rider, and now a great stage racer, there is very little left for him to cover in his career.

Lemond was a terrific champion, and a great rider, and it's to bad the American public wasn't ready to adopt him the way they have Armstrong. The waft of jealously coming from the Lemond camp isn't attractive though, it does nothing but dimish the legacy of one of the greatest champions we have. Celebrating Lance as he rides now is no way putting down Lemond, I wish some people would remember that.

don't hink it's jealousy, perhaps it gets portrayed as jealousy but it think it's more hrut that heis the forgotten champion.
after all this guy gave up everything and made sacrifices and played th game by the euro book in order to win.

But the american public just seemed to have warmed to lance more, possibly due to his cancer, or perhaps it's his Texan poise and in your face attitude.

LeMond was probably more european than Americans want to identify with which is a great shame becasue some peoples feelign that he suffers from an overinflated sense of self importance, Many believe that he would probably have been bigger than Armstrong had it not been for his shooting accident.

But history is cruel. It does not record what if's. What i would like to see is LeMond be recognised for his achievements in American cycling. Sdly I think it's a case of God today, gone tomorrow. Pity

Where can I read about these sour grapes from LeMOnd? Was he interviewed in a cycling magazine and started to debate his superiority over LA? I only ask as it would really suprise me. I met him at Mid-Ohio awhen he was racing cars and he was so nice that when we finished talking-I felt like I had known him for years and we had been buddies forever.

The LeMond you see being rude to camera men and reporters and the large crowds of people in France is not the Lemond I met in person.

And I do think he had 5 Tour wins in him. Remember he won the last two on Teams that were nowhere near as good as his competitors. I think he was pretty much alone in most of the mountains to fend for himself the last two wins. And I'll never forgive stupid Sam Posey's dumb Grin at the start of the telecast of his famous Time Trial-basically giving away the upset before it happened!!! Idiot!!!

I don't think it's anything that comes from Lemond himself, other than he's said before that he thinks he could have won more except for the shooting accident, that's all. From everything I've heard of him, or seen on TV/Newspapers - he's among the nicest guys to ever slip into lycra.

There does seem to be a small group of fans in the US though that is tired(?) of all-Lance, all-the time, and has taken to using the "Lemond would have been better" tact as a way of trying to marginilize LA's accomplishments a bit. There's no need too, anyone who knows anything about cycle racing knows Lemond was phenomenal, and any fool can see Armstrong is as well. They can co-exist as great American champions.

being one of the "younger" members of the forum, i will say that i did not know who lemond was until i got into cycling, and then it was just that there is a company out there named lemond, i just thought that is was something like fisher or klein, someone who had a lot to do with bikes and that is it, it was not until a few years later (when i got OLN) that i really found out who lemond is/was and i am still finding out the stories about him, mostly through the forum (is there a book on there about his life?) but exposure is so limited about lemond, i think that is why most "younger" people do not know who he is
think about it... did you know who "Shoeless" Joe Jackson was until the movie eight men out or field of dreams was released? even though he has the third highest lifetime batting average (.354, i think)? it all goes around to want the public is shown
just my thoughts

A few thoughts:

A year or two age LeMond insinuated (in an interview) that Lance may be a doper. People lit up his message board (on his site) telling him to rot in hell.
He lost points with American fans that day.

This year he was one of two living TdF winners to skip the Centenary Party after the race. The other? Pantani. Not great company. His excuse? "I would rather go fishing." Not a great excuse to skip such an event, particularly when a fellow American is winning his fifth.

Finally, regarding 1985...the American media, who clearly did not fully understand the sport, presented the race as if LeMond was being cheated out of a win. America bought the story and holds on tight. It is rubbish. He was paid to support Hinault. He was on a break and had the job of following Roche's wheel. He had no right to lead or pursue Yellow. He also had no right to cry on the side of the road about it after the stage. He was getting paid to do a job with very clear parameters. You don't help attack a teammate who is wearing yellow and pursuing a fifth win. Simple. Imagine if Heras wanted to attack Lance and cried when he was told not to. Just silly.

Some of Lemonds behavior is unfortunate. I don't think it's of dislike of Lance as much as an internal what could have been.

On the Hinault point, yes, I agree with you. He was paid to do a job and I think many understood that after 85 and did not blame Hinault or the Team. It was after Hinaults promises to Lemond that the "He could and should have taken it last year" happened.

Sports Illustrated online has a list of the 50 greatest athletes from each state. Amazingly, they don't have Greg listed.

The hell with him though. I never realized that he was so bitter about having won three (!) TDFs. When you remember that there are riders who count a stage win as their career highlight, it's pretty tough to feel sorry for this jackass.

I too don't see all this bitterness that Laggard and others are condemning LeMond for. Very few athletes leave their sport feeling they did all that they could or wanted to do. Lemond has spoken of this and now he's condemned? Doesn't make sense to me.

Fact is LeMond had quite a bit of celebrity after he won his Tours, esp. the first one and the last one. That last stage TT victory makes LA's "close" Tour this year look like a blowout. LeMond raced and won in Europe when he was practically alone. Only the second American to race the Tour (Jonathan Boyer was 1st. Now there's somebody with real issues) he actually won it and introduced mainstream America to road racing. Without denigrating LA in the least it is still a fair question to ask what LA's opportunities would've been w/o LeMond?

LeMond and LA are both two guys with quite large egos who may not get along that well. Sometimes these things happen, nobody gets along with everyone and LA seems to have a caustic side to him as well. LeMond's issues with the Italian Dr. (Ferrari?) and LA are not unique to him. Again there's absolutely no evidence that LA has done anything improper and I do not believe he has but the Dr. IS currently on trial in Italy for doping issues. LeMond wasn't very diplomatic with his timing to be sure though. I am disappointed that LeMond wasn't in France for the Tour. Whatever his feelings for LA may be LeMond should have been there out of respect to the Tour itself. Whether he gets the celebrity he feels he deserves or not the fact is he's a quite wealthy person and for that he has the Tour to thank.

Johnathan Boyer is one of the saddest stories in cycling. ProCycling had an article about him recently (I 'think' it was ProCycling) - kind of an interesting peek into someones disturbed mind.