Campag4life

In bold...reason is perspective.
Because conventional wisdom is...Lemond is the true iconic American cyclist, not Lance Armstrong. He was also a trail blazer who went into Europe's backyard....an American when American's had no cycling pedigree and beat the Europeans at their own game. Many including myself believe he did it clean. So to be upstaged by a 7x's TdF winner who did so by cheating is a bitter pill to take. I am not as critical of LA as many because he competed in an era of cheating...but I do believe him to be a ruthless SOB much like Hinault.

Campag4life

Its clearly not true. Hinault was trying to put time on Lemond without him knowing about it. It was only by extraordinary riding that Lemond kept Hinault from wining his 6th TdF. Lemond was also the stronger rider of the two the year before when Hinault won his 5th. That was their agreement.

OldsCOOL

Jaeger99

The film was clearly presenting a point of view, though at least attempting to do so in a balanced fashion. That said, given the known and undisputed facts, I find it hard to conclude anything other than Hinault was a self-serving back-stabbing scumbag who broke his word and did everything to undermine his teammate in 86, but got his ass handed to him anyway.

rpenmanparker 

I thought the mention of Armstrong was superfluous as was much of the introductory material. I would much rather have had the time used to discuss Lemond's philosophy of bike design and fit, his approach to team stage racing strategies and tactics and other things he could have taught all of us. This guy really knew how to ride a bike, and it would have be useful to hear him talk about it some.

KantoBoy

30 for 30 in 2020

Manweiser

Agreed. People need the reference to understand the magnitude of what LeMond accomplished at the time. In my opinion, it could have been accomplished with a single reference to LA and let LeMond's story stand on its own.

macca33

An attempt at humour right********** Not very funny if it was. If not, the fact that anyone would make that type of statement (or have a mind that would think that) almost beggars belief....

Campag4life

I guess you don't understand the context. Conversation is about Greg Lemond. Not your beliefs of sexual abuse which I agree is beyond horrific. First it was alleged. Second, Lemond went on to achieve unfathomable heights in his life including a great relationship with his wife and children.
So my cavalier reference was based upon the fact it was even brought up...or if it is even true. The subject is woefully inappropriate and was given an equally obtuse response. Make no mistake how I feel about it.

Nachoman

Bump.
PSA, it's available now on netflix.

68venable

Also on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdCh555uBX8

Clipped_in

Thanks guys! I read the book--really enjoyed it. Gonna have to check this out.

thisisbenji

Good film. I never knew much about LeMond before watching this the other day on Netflix.

EricT80

It was decent film. They could've done without the Lance stuff but I guess that just helps make Lemond better. It just seemed that Greg had a ton of excuses...as if everyone was out to get him/he was just some innocent/clean guy and everything was someone else's fault.

Hiro11

Lemond is portrayed as a twitchy, hot tempered, slightly self-doubting and slightly childish fellow. He's the definitive "naive Yank fresh off the boat in Europe who feels wronged". His supressed grin when talking about beating Hinault and genuine anger gives away a bit of steel in his character. His wife is ever-present, lucid and clearly wears the pants in this family.

Hinault comes off as a definitely jaded French athlete: endlessly self-assured, effortlessly dominates the room, fearless and more than a little arrogant. The way he talks is slightly dismissive to everyone involved but makes sense in the context of being a living legend and an inarguably dominant champion. he makes a lot of sense if you think about it from his perspective. Note: no wife present.

Hampsten is painted as a slightly goofy but loyal and honest sidekick.

Koechli is somewhat creepy, dishonest and squirrelly. He makes statements that seem deep and well considered but are actually silly and besides the point. I think Lemond's correct when he says that "Koechli isn't as smart as he thinks he is".

Samuel Abt is hilariously deadpan and literate.

The French journalist is matter of fact.

Tapie is the missing link. The film is harmed by his lack of participation.

The La Vie Claire-inspired graphics are awesome. Some of the anecdotes are interesting. The vintage footage is razor sharp and beautiful. The discussion of EPO hitting the peloton should have been left out but is in there because otherwise only true cycling fanatics would care about this film. If it's about cycling and US made, Lance has to be in there somewhere for the neophytes.

I liked the film. It's one of the better cycling documentaries out there.

Voodoo76

My take away was a little different. I think Hinault was what he was, and had no clue how to ride for someone else. Kind of like expecting a shark not to at least try to take a bit out of you. So for me it was more about Greg's naivete, winning in spite of it, and I'm a big LeMond fan.

Other take away watching a second time around. I want to know what Andy H. is eating! Dude looked amazing, like he could still just hop on a bike and climb anything. Lives in Italy?

milkbaby

Excellent documentary! The interviews with Hinault and Koechli are hard to swallow, a lot of doublespeak trying to disguise the fact that Hinault was stabbing Lemond in the back with his riding in 1986. It was also good to see that Lemond wasn't totally innocent as he had to be ordered to sit up in the 1985 TdF when he went with the attack that dropped Hinault.

68venable

Yeah. That was a pretty awesome video. I told my wife all about it... knowing that she had zero interest.

dtrain

+1. Not to give Hinault a pass, but Koechli (and likely Tapie) seems more like the dishonest scum.

calamarichris

Very true, but I still enjoy watching the bottomhurt Lance fans perform historical, moral, & reasoning acrobatics.
Every time they hear the name Lemond, it's a reminder of how they were duped into slandering the true American Tour Legend. Such gems as:
~Lemond is a crybaby/attention wh0r3/has-been/worse
~Now that Lance got caught, everyone else is guilty too. Therefore Lemond surely doped.
~Lemond cheated when he was a junior because he used a 53T chainring instead of a 52T.
~Lance is still awesomer because 7x and everyone else was doping during his era.
Etc, etc.
I've read the book and watched this flick a while ago. Seems like a pretty biased character assassination to me. Koechli did look like a stammering little wiener, and Tapie like a supreme D-bag in the film, but Hinault's explanation remains plausible. (Why broadcast a red-herring-free battle plan for all the other teams to unite against?) Hinault had been a top rider for decades, and now suddenly he goes out too strong like a rookie and comes apart late in the stage?--Smells like he's enjoying one final flourish to me. And the language in the book (authored by an American who was a young kid when he watched the Tour footage like the rest of us) takes on a decidedly dogmatic, almost evangelical tone IMO.

achoo

A bit late, but there's actual evidence that Mays not only used amphetamines but also distributed them. Google it.

With Mantle, the proper question probably should be, "Which of the drugs available at the time didn't he use?"

Aaron admitted using amphetamines.

If legality of the drug is what makes it abuse, then Babe Ruth is probably the biggest abuser of illegal drugs in baseball history.

Arrgh. I hate the simplistic "Steroids caused the HR binge in baseball" attitude. There's no real evidence it did - HR rates exploded in one year - 1994 - and believe it or not have stayed pretty constant since then, at least once you correct for the huge increase in strikeouts over the past few years.

Don't believe me?

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball

Sorry to toss actual evidence out that contradicts the stories you've been fed.

Note that before 1994, about 3% of balls put in play went for HRs. After and including 1994, it's been pretty steady at just under 4%.

What changed in 1994? The ball.

What's changed in the past few years? The strike zone is getting larger. Much larger, especially down low, making it much harder to hit fly balls. Some HR rates and scoring in general have been dropping over the past few years, but not because of steroid testing.

mprelaw

It's not so much the illegality, but also the performance enhancement aspects of the drug. I don't think you'll find too many people who'll claim that beer and whiskey are performance enhancers. The fact that the Babe (and Mantle, too) hit a lot of HRs with massive hangovers doesn't really detract much from them.

Clipped_in

+1 Solid analysis. I liked it too!

Lazyass

It looks to me like it was a miss-communication. Lemond says he was ordered to wait for Hinault and not work with Roche. Koechli said he did not want Lemond to work with Roche, but to attack him and try to win the stage (and probably the tour). There was the debate about Lemond being told Hinult wasn't as far back as he was told, but I'm not sure the team actually wanted Lemond to wait. I do think Koechli was right when he said Greg didn't like to attack. He didn't actually win very many stages in his tours.

mprelaw

That's also one of the things that Fignon criticized him for, in his autobiography. He didn't ride "with style".

Style is everything to les francais, mais oui?