bt

does mom know you're online again?

rpenmanparker 

Like everyone else you either know something or you don't. Belief without proof isn't worth a whole lot. You can only know what you know but not what you don't. But apparently it is an article of faith with you, and it is not wise to argue with a person's religion. So I will just permit you to have it your way. Why should any of us care what any athlete did or didn't do anyway? Unless you need to have heroes that is. It that what this is about?

rpenmanparker 

TV in the USA. We did have TV back then you know. I seem to remember it was broadcast as installments of ABC's Wide World of Sports. But that could be wrong. It might have been CBS. IIRC the broadcasts were only on weekends and included both recaps of the action during the previous week as well as the current day's race.

Sailor73 

I would almost bet Armstrong had his henchman dig as deep as possible into Lemonds racing career to uncover any kind of doping. I'm not saying Lemond is clean but I am saying after 30 years, it still has yet to be proven.

Yep. I started following it in 1985. Good ole Wide World of Sports. 1987 was the big year the Tour got more airtime and 1988 was an even bigger year due to Hampsten winning the Giro. We were getting dedicated weekend coverage complete with the John Tesh and Yanni musical montages.

type36

Any idea when or if this will re-air?

bruce19

Not to mention Floyd Landis who had one of his "henchmen" dig up dirt about LeMond being sexually assaulted as a child. You can bet that Armstrong, who threatened everyone else, went after him full tilt. Having watched the show and especially considering Andy Hampsten's commentary, I'm inclined to believe that neither he nor LeMond doped. In the face of attacks by Landis and Armstrong, LeMond has never backed down. Doesn't sound like someone who has something to hide to me.

Jaeger99

+1 to that.

For my fellow Canucks, this will air on TSN, Friday at 8:00pm Eastern. Looking forward to it.

OldsCOOL

This is what perplexed me. For anyone finding that Greg was sexually abused, how could that damage his career. No wonder Greg was a little nervous back then. Today, this isnt any kind of news or much to even read of.

roadwarrior

I posted a note about this in the racing forum...

Why does every thread have to run to speculation on who was doping?

The beauty of the show on ESPN was that it was about two guys competing, some deceit, head games, all the things that pretty much make up serious bike racing.

Just enjoy the show. Good grief.

The thread in the pro cycling forum did not lower to a drug argument.

bbattle

I've got dvd copies of those broadcasts. John Tesh(yes, that one) was the announcer.

bruce19

As you know, when Landis was making those claims LeMond's career was well over. But, he was desperate to find anything that might shut LeMond up. And, that kind of thing is very personal and could be something you would not want made public. They underestimated LeMond. He refused to back down.

Voodoo76

Agree, it seems like for the most part, as is the case in this thread, that angle is the last refuge of the Lance apologists. Thought it was a good show.

merlinextraligh

there was coverage in the U.S. Not the blanket coverage we have now. But the portion of the stage where Lemond was ordered to sit up was definitely shown on TV in the U.S.

floridamtb

TiVO!

OldsCOOL

I agree. The program captivated me, took me back to a time where the present bike I ride was being used. Oh and no helmets, hair blowing in the wind.

Leinster

Will there be a reshowing of this for those of us who only found out late yesterday that it was on, and weren't home in time to record it? Or is there an online source that it could be streamed from?

himespau 

I hope they'll show it again. I just saw it on the guide as it was half over. Will have to scan again and see. I keep meaning to read the book, but haven't gotten around to grabbing a copy yet.

roadwarrior

Greg beat Hinault who was a god in France...despite threats and even to the point of being told not to take any food or drink from the team. He had his own guys, his wife and Mom cooked all his food, and he was being threatened every day on the bike. Intentional crashes, etc.

Yet he won.

I watched it the first time when it actually happened...enjoyed seeing film I had not seen in a long while...chuckled watching Hinault attack LeMond on descents then claim he was just toughening him up.

If you missed it, it's on ESPN2 at 7.30am eastern Saturday morning according to their schedule.

mprelaw

He took a million dollar contract to ride in support of Hinault in 1985. That was the role he signed on for that year. Wasn't a case of "letting" Hinault win. It was a team sport then, and it's a team sport now. The team was absolutely justified in holding him back. Hinault was the team leader, still in the race, and Greg's job was to support him. He contracted to ride in a support role. It's the same situation that we had with Froome and Wiggins two years ago. Froome was arguably a stronger rider, but Wiggo was the leader and Froome had to support him. Hinault hand picked Greg for La Vie Clair and got Tapie to spend a million bucks to get him there.

The next year, Greg was promised the leader's role. That's an entirely different story. Hinault should have kept his word and supported him. Maybe in his mind he thinks he did. He's always claimed that he knew that Greg could meet his attacks, and he did it to break the field for Greg. Whether that's true or not, only he knows.

Don't forget that LeMond was also criticized for attacking his teammate, Jacques Boyer, in the 1982 WC, when he dragged a group up to Boyer, who was leading, in the last 800 meters.

rpenmanparker 

Everything you say is right except with regard to Hinault being the undisputed team leader. In my opinion a rider can only be the team leader and command support from his staff as long as he is leading. Once Hinault faltered, IMO he abrogated the leadership. The strongest rider has to be allowed to assume to role of team leader else the term makes no sense. If you let someone lead who isn't the best available, then you are doing a disservice to the team and the sponsors. If you are not prepared to scrap for leadership of the team every day, you shouldn't hire underlings who can best you so easily. The structure of a team with two leaders yet tries to operate traditionally is inherently faulty. It wasn't Greg's fault. He was doing what comes naturally. What was being asked of him was unnatural.

Manweiser

Bookending the show with mentions of Armstrong was a bit much for me. Its a story of LeMond v Hinault. Why bring up the doping scandals of Armstrong/Landis twice?

Otherwise, a great story and a well put together 30for30 by ESPN. I have to agree with the others on the forum regarding doping and the idea that it was present before and after but not during LeMond's tenure. Liggett had an interesting comment about not barging into someone's hotel room because they may have a blood bag hanging around. I've started to realize that in all sport, there are dark eras. It is what it is. Regardless, these guys are racing day after to day and to win once, let alone multiple times, is an amazing feat.

Also heard that it'll replay at 4pm(EST), Saturday, on ABC.

DXchulo

Finally got around to watching this on YouTube. It was pretty good, but I was expecting more. Some of the other 30 for 30s are so damn good. Maybe those docs are just more interesting when you don't know the whole story before you watch it.

I think there was just too much going on to give everything the full time it deserved. They kind of threw in the parts about LeMond getting shot and his legendary win against Fignon at the end when that story alone could have been its own full documentary. I also agree that they threw in the Lance stuff at the beginning and the end, which was totally unnecessary. I was also hoping for more from the Hinault interview. They didn't seem to use a whole lot of it and they didn't ask him many tough questions. Before the interview the guy joked that he was scared of Hinault...maybe he really was. It seemed like Paul Koechli got all the tough questions even though it was obvious he was never going to give honest answers.

One thing I did find interesting was how Hinault and Koechli both saw cycling as a "game". Koechli even went so far as to say that all the suffering talk is BS. (His point was that you can't just suffer harder than the next guy and win- you have to make smart decisions.) To me, that really showed how strong Hinault was. If cycling is a game and you can just attack whenever you want, you must be in pretty good shape. I wonder if any of today's riders view it that way.

rpenmanparker 

I don't think that is what "game" meant. I think it meant there was strategy and psychology not just brute force.

rpenmanparker 

My take on Koechli was that he was as disingenuous as any person I have ever encountered. Either intentionally or otherwise he used the language barrier to make his replies inscrutable.

Bottom line both Hinault and Koechli thought they could redefine language to cover their deceit. They were basically saying that we didn't understand their declarations. Losing mean winning. Attacking a teammate is the same as wearing down an opponent. It was always Hinault's team, and it was always supposed to be about Hinault no matter what promises had been made.

Campag4life

Simple reason is, typically if a rider has been sexually abused, his riding becomes more erratic when closely drafted. This may not matter a time or two or even during a stage but throughout a long tour, it can take its toll.