What are you, French?
Originally Posted by
calamarichris
He went as fast as he could...
Yes, it's called "attacking."
Attacking the team leader, who you promised to help win the race, is called "betrayal."
Suggesting that this behavior somehow helped Lemond, or made him a "true champion" -- while having benefitted from Lemond's support in previous tours, and from teammates who should have helped Lemond during that race -- is called a "lame excuse."
There's a reason why pretty much everyone except Hinault has the same take on 1986. It's because
Hinault wanted to win, regardless of who got screwed in the process.
Originally Posted by calamarichris
This Armstrong episode (and a few other major news stories between the year 2000 and 2010, that also turned out to be nonsense) has given us all a very good reason to question the mainstream line, IMO.
Or not.
Armstrong indulged in years of manipulation, intimidation, deceit and bribery to prevent anyone from exposing his doping.
In contrast, Hinault didn't hide what he was doing. Why bother? Lemond was American, Hinault was French. The French press and spectators didn't care that Hinault went back on his word.
How does Armstrong's behavior affect anything other than our opinion of events long before he was involved? Should we question Eddy Merckx's reputation, because Armstrong was a liar? Should we revise our opinions of the Anquetil-Poulidor rivalry on that basis? Should we rewrite Euene Christophe's broken-fork incident from 1913, because Armstrong doped?
Armstrong's actions cast doubt on how the media treated Armstrong, and that's about it.