51 replies to this topic

[holiday]

I just learnt that one of my favourite cyclers the 3 time Tour de France winner GregLeMond is currently pursuing a career as a racing car driver in the Formula Ford 2000 series. Considering his progressive thinking and the attention to detail he displayed at time in cycling (e.g. was the first to use rider to team telecommunications, thus inventing 'telemetry' in cycling in his way ), I wonder how he fares? LeMond has also made one of the most remarkable sports comeback ever when he returned after a horrible hunting accident to win another two Tours 1989 and 1990, albeit then in less dominant fashion. Anybody sharing some info?

Jan Ullrich - Tour de France winner 2003

[theunions]

I thought this was several years ago (about five?), not "currently."

[cheesy poofs]

I guess this settles it...

SCCA PRO FAX - Volume 3, Number 20 - September 13, 1996

LEMOND TO RACE U.S. FF2000 IN '97: World Cycling Champion and Tour de France winner Greg LeMond has joined Miller Brothers Racing and will contest the 1997 United States Formula Ford 2000 Championship, joining team owner John Miller driving Van Diemen Fords. It's clear I'm hooked on racing, said LeMond. To compete with a championship caliber team, in arguably the top ride available, in the highly competitive U.S. FF2000 Pro Series, exceeds my greatest expectations. LeMond was impressive in his professional motorsports debut earlier this season, as he finished 12th in the rain soaked SCCA Spec Racer Ford Pro Series race at the Children's Grand Prix of Minnesota. Impressed, the Miller Brothers Racing Team offered LeMond a test session at Blackhawk Farms Raceway under the guidance of veteran FF2000 driver Steve Knapp. LeMond was offered the opportunity to join the team following the test. Greg is truly a class act, said Miller. His obvious talent and competitive desire, coupled with his strong belief in giving back to the community through his charitable activities, are a wonderful asset to the team. Greg's extensive sports marketing background and insight will be invaluable to the team. This strategic alliance between one of the true legends of the sports world and one of the top, up and coming motorsports teams foretells great things for the future. The Minneapolis-based Miller Milling Company, one of the largest U.S. millers of wheat for the pasta industry, will continue its long-standing involvement with the team.

[holiday]

Originally posted by theunions
I thought this was several years ago (about five?), not "currently."

uuh, *shuffle in the papers* ..... GUESS YOU ARE RIGHT, PAL!



Thx cheesy poofs

Maybe anybody having an opinion on Greg LeMond the cyclist (hey, we have to use the web space now!)?

[Jim Thurman]

Well, when I was a would be cyclist, I met Greg LeMond when he was first starting out. It was literally his second race. I had gone to Pasadena, California for a criterium race on Saturday and there was a road race on Sunday around the Rose Bowl. I was the only member of my club at that event on Saturday and met up with the rest that evening. The first thing one of my teammates asked was how the Intermediate (12-15 year old) criterium went. He asked how Lemond did. I told him he got 3rd. This led to this teammate saying he thought Greg was going to be a great rider. Another said: "That little guy we saw at Acton?...nah!, no way he's going to make it..."

I'm sure Greg would remember me, just due to the thrilling nature of the conversation, which took place during the following day's Senior event...

Me: "So, you're from Reno?"
Greg: "Yup"
Me: "Just starting out in cycling..."
Greg: "Yeah...this is my second race"

Compelling stuff that

I also recall him telling me something about doing cycling to help with his skiing, and then his dad (who was also racing that day), came by and told him they had to get ready to leave. Greg was rather pasty looking that day and said he didn't feel that well. People were asking him if he was ok.

As he wobbled down the hill (we were standing in the feeding zone), the dubious teammate turned to me, shook his head and muttered: "No way he's going to make it."


Jim Thurman

[Viss1]

Believe it or not, I have a 1/64 scale replica of LeMond's car, complete with autograph. He was signing them at some forgotten trade show back in '98.

[Disco Stu]

I actually raced against him a few times. I ran a few of the pro F2000 races during that time. He seemed to have a fair amount of talent, he eventually worked his way onto the podium, but I think that was the highest level he would've had any real success at. Here are his career stats in F2000:

Greg LeMond's USF2000 stats

[D-Type]

IIRC Way back in 1958, Britain's top cyclist, Reg Harris had a try at motor racing in a red D-Type Jaguar. I don't think he progressed beyond club racing. But I am open to correction from those who know

[BRNDLL]

Another innovation often credited to him is the insistence of using aerobars (tri-bars) and an aero helmet on that fateful day of the final stage of the Tour in '89. Laurent Fignon shunned the potential benefit of the bars (as well as the aero helmet) and lost that day on a short tail-wind assisted time trial. Lemond had to lobby the Societe' just to use them and made history that day...
Awesome stuff.
A very forward thinker that guy.

bb

[mikedeering]

Greg LeMond the cyclist...urgh. Let's see. He concentrated on 2 races each year - le Tour and the World Champs, and thus set the marker for future cyclists that this kind of stance was acceptable. Pah! Merckx and Hinault won everything they entered - they won 5 Tours each despite also trying to win every other race they enterted. Compare their victories to LeMond, who achieved 3 Tours and 2 Road Races and err..nothing.

And due to LeMond we now have a succession of racers who simply focus on the TdF and thus undermine the value of those other great races, the giro, vuelta, the spring classics. Indurain and Armstrong simply followed on from the path first treaded by LeMond.

In 1986 he had Hinault to assist him. In 1989 he benefitted from the best rider in the race (Delgado) giving away nearly 3 minutes in the prologue (nice one Pedro) and then losing more time in the TTT through not eating. He beat Fignon by 8 seconds, due entirely to his use of advanced equipment. OK, well done for having the foresight to use it, but he hardly looked dominant. Fair play, he had no team support and did win, so I will grudgingly give him some respect for the 1989 triumph. He then went and spoiled it by winning the world title that year that should have gone to Sean Kelly, a far more deserving winner!

In 1990, he managed to win the Tour without even winning a stage! That's like winning the WDC without winning a GP - that deserves zero respect. The guy never attacked ever - he simply followed. That style doesn't grant you respect. After the 90 Tour, what did he do? Nothing.

OK, he was unfortunate in missing the 87 and 88 seasons through the shooting incident, but you cannot claim LeMond was a worthy cycling champion. He didn't attack enough for my liking (like, he actually never attacked). At least Armstrong stamps his authority all over a race in the grandest traditions of Hinault and Merckx - even when he wasn't in yellow LeMond would rarely attack, and once in yellow he would never attack. Armstrong is attack attack attack, whether in yellow or not.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Greg LeMond the cyclist...urgh. Let's see. He concentrated on 2 races each year - le Tour and the World Champs, and thus set the marker for future cyclists that this kind of stance was acceptable. Pah! Merckx and Hinault won everything they entered - they won 5 Tours each despite also trying to win every other race they enterted. Compare their victories to LeMond, who achieved 3 Tours and 2 Road Races and err..nothing.

And due to LeMond we now have a succession of racers who simply focus on the TdF and thus undermine the value of those other great races, the giro, vuelta, the spring classics. Indurain and Armstrong simply followed on from the path first treaded by LeMond.

In 1986 he had Hinault to assist him. In 1989 he benefitted from the best rider in the race (Delgado) giving away nearly 3 minutes in the prologue (nice one Pedro) and then losing more time in the TTT through not eating. He beat Fignon by 8 seconds, due entirely to his use of advanced equipment. OK, well done for having the foresight to use it, but he hardly looked dominant. Fair play, he had no team support and did win, so I will grudgingly give him some respect for the 1989 triumph. He then went and spoiled it by winning the world title that year that should have gone to Sean Kelly, a far more deserving winner!

In 1990, he managed to win the Tour without even winning a stage! That's like winning the WDC without winning a GP - that deserves zero respect. The guy never attacked ever - he simply followed. That style doesn't grant you respect. After the 90 Tour, what did he do? Nothing.

OK, he was unfortunate in missing the 87 and 88 seasons through the shooting incident, but you cannot claim LeMond was a worthy cycling champion. He didn't attack enough for my liking (like, he actually never attacked). At least Armstrong stamps his authority all over a race in the grandest traditions of Hinault and Merckx - even when he wasn't in yellow LeMond would rarely attack, and once in yellow he would never attack. Armstrong is attack attack attack, whether in yellow or not.

Sorry that it's getting OT, but that's a pretty ridiculous post.
About the 1986 Tour: you really have no clue. If you've read any French, Belgian or Dutch paper at that time you knew Hinault did not assist him, in fact he did everything to win the Tour himself. Then he could be the one and only six-time winner! Yes they were teammates, but there were in fact two teams within the La Vie Claire team and Greg could only count on Andy Hampstean and Steve Bauer. The others were in Hinault's camp. I admire Greg for surviving that kind of pressure, getting the job done while all France went crazy for Hinault's elusive sixth win.

Concerning his later wins, you'll have to remind that he never regained his earlier strength after his shooting accident. His 1989 win stands out, not just because of that 8 sec margin, but also because of the fact that he just got no team left in the crucial final week of mountain stages (Lammers and a very young Museeuw can't help you on the way to Alpe d'Huez). Since then, there's been no TdF winner with such a weak team - he just had to rely on his last day exploit.

Finally: the 1989 Road WC. IMHO he was a far deserving winner than Sean Kelly, who was helped by Martin Earley and -against all rules- by his Belgian friend Claude Criquelion. Again, Greg was left without team help in the final stages. Still, he was the only one to counter Fignon's final demarrage in the last mile, came in front far too early as a result of that - but still beat Konishev and Kelly on merit!
If you win that very demanding '89 Tour and the Road WC on that demanding alpine circuit in one year, after nearly bleeding to death two years earlier and with the hail bullets still in your body- you're a real champion.

[BRNDLL]

mikedeering... lay off the medication, or get back on it. Or are you related to Guimard?

Yikes. I didnt see any post that said the method that Gerg Lemond employed made him any more deserving a champion than Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi, etc.

Scheivlak- spot on with the 86 Tour and the 89 Road champ. In fact, it is widely regarded that in the 85 Tour, Lemond was the strongest as well often waiting on Hinault with the agreement that he would repay the debt the following year.

As for how the current cyclists race the season, I have seen countless quotes from the Cannibal himself that cycling has changed, his son showing that genetics only carry you so far. I have ultimate respect for the cycling greats and I would rate Greg Lemond on the list, not at the top mind you, but on the list.


bb

[holiday]

mikedeering,

I am a bit disappointed, normally you are better than that….

Greg LeMond the cyclist...urgh. Let's see. He concentrated on 2 races each year - le Tour and the World Champs, and thus set the marker for future cyclists that this kind of stance was acceptable. Pah! Merckx and Hinault won everything they entered - they won 5 Tours each despite also trying to win every other race they enterted. Compare their victories to LeMond, who achieved 3 Tours and 2 Road Races and err..nothing.

Compare Prost, Schumacher and Senna with the likes of Clark, Fangio and Rindt and you could come to the same conclusion, that today’s f1 driver are shying away from competing in other series, thereby showing they are not worthy champions. You don’t blame them for that, do you? You rather have to take the fact that nowadays f1 pilots are solely concentrating on formula1, very much like cyclers are only concentrating on 2, 3 events in a season, as an indication that times have changed and that what was then a half time job has long become a full time job in both sports. The changing nature of competition has forced the drivers to concentrate on their essential job and the very same is true for the cyclers.

In 1986 he had Hinault to assist him. In 1989 he benefitted from the best rider in the race (Delgado) giving away nearly 3 minutes in the prologue (nice one Pedro) and then losing more time in the TTT through not eating.

Scheivlak has already replied with more insight than I have but as far as my memory serves I can only agree with him. In fact, already in 1985 was LeMond already visibly the stronger cycler but he came to an agreement with Hinault that this Tour was Hinaults and in return the next Tour 86 should be his. Now we can only guess what LeMonds underlying motivation was but I think that the fact that Hinault wielded considerable political power within the team, at the Tour and last but not least in France itself of course (he was the last of the patrons before Armstrong and is today tellingly chief sports official of the Tour ) and LeMond still had reason to feel insecure about his position within the team, ‘helpt’ a great deal to make LeMond this decision easier. 1986 then hinault attacked ignoring his previous agreement and was well beaten. Don’t get me wrong, I cheered both years for Hinault, but Hinaults political manoevering then was obvious and very much a topic in the press.

Now Delgado was also the dominant figure of 1987 where he eventually lost it to Stephen Roche, if my memory serves me right, in a time trial due to his nervousness (I remember him riding a line like a drunkard). I don’t think you can blame Roche nor LeMond for fully capitalizing on Delgados weakness, they were just doing their job after all...

In 1990, he managed to win the Tour without even winning a stage! That's like winning the WDC without winning a GP - that deserves zero respect. The guy never attacked ever - he simply followed. That style doesn't grant you respect.

Well, we have been through this before, exemplified in the case with Prost, Senna and the 89 season, have we? While I can give you credit at least for being consequential, I think you are just overly limited in your views there. There are many ways to win championship or the Tour and while every fan may have his favourite way, its equally true that the others must have done something wrong if they let the winner get away with such performances, mustnt they? BTW Its interesting to see that both LeMond and Prost won without much team support in 1989, even though out of very different reasons. I havent seen this in this perspective yet.


BRNDLL,

do you mean with ‚aero-bars’ these “V” shaped handlebars from Triathlon?

[BRNDLL]

holiday... good points all.

Yes I did mean those V shaped bars. Up until that point, most all time trials were done on what is reffered to as "bull horn" bars which at the time were nothing more than normal drop bars, sawed off and flipped over. This provided a lower mount, a single position and a lighter setup.

The "aero" bars used by Lemond were actually in use already on the triathalon circuit at the time but no one had yet attempted to use them in professional cycling. Lemond and his director had to lobby the Societe' (tour organization) to allow them the night before I believe. I think he used the clip on type which are really just forward extensions bolted to "cow horn" bars with a brace at the ends. This enabled a more stretched postion and better aerodynamic's for rider and bike.
Again, very forward thinking at the time.

bb

[mikedeering]

OK, my initial post was more RC than TNF...

BRNDLL:

"Yikes. I didnt see any post that said the method that Gerg Lemond employed made him any more deserving a champion than Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi, etc. "

No - but holiday asked for comments on Greg LeMond the cyclist - I was responding to that. When assessing LeMond the cyclist it therefore makes perfect to assess him against the other perceived greats of cycling.

The 1985-1986 La Vie Claire political situation with Hinault and LeMond has been well documented. The comment regarding the 1986 event was somewhat tongue in cheek, and based on Hinault's own comments. I would agree that LeMond could well have won the 1985 TdF, since Hinault suffered majorly with bronchitis in the second half of the race following his crash into St Etienne that IIRC broke his nose, and affected his breathing. IIRC, LeMond, (ever the team player!) looked to attack Hinault after the accident but his directeur sportif ordered him not to. Whether he would have been able to win if Hinault had not had his accident is doubtful - in the first half of the race the Frenchman was at his imperious best and went frequently on the offensive, recalling the younger Hinault from the late 70s. Of course equally, others felt Hinault went too far, drained his reserves with his early performances and should have been made to pay for them by a more circumspect LeMond later on. It's a difficult situation to judge - Hinault was the #1, in a French team and gunning for his 5th tour win - LeMond was not the #1 and should have played his team role, especially in view of Hinault's injuries, rather than attack him. Who knows if LeMond could have won - Hinault (all pride as ever) claimed LeMond couldn't have won anyway of course... I think it's slightly simplistic to state LeMond and Hinault agreed to split the 1985 and 1986 Tours - there was far more to it than that.

So to 1986 - Hinault was apparently not interested in winning a 6th tour. LeMond was far stronger in 1986, and Hinault, already looking old in 1985 was a year further on. Despite Hinault's constant statements that he was riding for LeMond only, his performances suggested the opposite - that he was riding only for himself! Revelling in the French support he was receiving (which was previously absent, for Hinault's arrogance hardly endeared him to the French public prior to 1986) Hinault frequently went on the offensive, and would then claim to be toughening LeMond up! The Alpe d'Huez stage was an epic, with the two riders crossing the line together. Despite all Hinault's mind games, LeMond's nerve held and he won the race. Not surprisingly - for Hinault was past his best and LeMond had matured into a fearsome rider by then. I think Hinault knew he couldn't beat LeMond in a straight fight - Hinault was simply too old at that stage of is career. But Hinault was not one to accept defeat graciously, so knowing he wouldn't win anyone decided to have some fun with his younger "team-mate" - thus all the mind games, the attacks, the statements that he was only riding for LeMond, was attacking to weaken their rivals, trying to toughen up LeMond and turn him into a true champion etc. It was inevitable that LeMond was going to win, but he allowed himself to be drawn in by the Badger's attempts to unsettle him. He couldn't really lose the 1986 Tour - he was by far the strongest rider, but still allowed the wily Hinault to unnerve him.

1987 and 1988 were lost years for LeMond following his shooting in April 1987.

He came back in 1989 with a weak team (ADR) and his pre Tour performances were nothing special, although he faired well in the Giro TTs with his aero bars. He's comeback was confirmed with a win in the first TT of the 1989 Tour, and he quickly emerged as the main rival to Laurent Fignon, himself a former Tour champion whose career had recently been blighted by injury. Delgado was probably the best rider in the race and had the best team, but screwed himself royally by turning up late for the Prologue and then being dropped by his team in the TTT! I think he lost about 7 minutes to LeMond and Fignon as a result of these antics and so wrote himself out of contention through his own mistakes. LeMond indeed received no support from his weak team in the mountains, but since he never attacked he didn't need it! He did well to limit his losses to Figno on the harder stages, knowing he had a good chance of clawing back the deficit in the TTs. Even so, his performance on the last day was impressive - I think he took 58 seconds out of Fignon in 24 kms, which was some performance. This was mostly due to an advantage gained from the "tribars" he used - again credit for using technology to assist him (although of course the UCI have since made attempts to take away technology from the sport and put the emphasis more on the rider - can't think why?!!) Fignon also made a tactical error in running both a front and rear disc wheel and was hampered by the wind on the course as a result.

1990 was his weakest tour performance. Only 5 riders have ever won the Tour without winning a stage - in 89 editions of the race. To me this is totally akin to winning the WDC without winning a round. He made a real meal of beating a relatively unknown rider at that stage - a certain Claudio Chiappucci (who LeMond, showing that reknown US understanding of international relations repeated referred to as Cappuccino). He only achieved the win in the final TT - as usual LeMond did little in the mountains, content to follow rather than lead. His TT abilities, while still reasonable were noticably diluted now that aerobars had become standard in the peloton - his advantage from 1989 was thus lost, and he failed to win a single stage as a result.

After the 1990 race, LeMond was never again a factor in the TdF, and since that was the only race he concentrated on, that was basicially it for his career. He finished 7th in 1991 as Indurain made his mark, and thereafter never finished another Tour IIRC, although competed up to 1994.

Of course, you can argue long into the night about whether LeMond would have been a force in 1987 and 198 without the shooting, just as you can claim that Ayrton Senna would have won every WDC since 1994 were it not for Imola that year! This is pure speculation. LeMond won in 1986 against an aging Hinault, although admittedly coped well with the politics at LvC. He won in 1989 through his forward thinking, and despite having a weak team. In 1990 he was fortunate to win against weak competition and with a strong team. His win was somewhat tarnished by the fact that he failed to win a stage and he hardly stamped his authority on the race in the way Armstrong for example has in recent years.

[holiday]

Hey, thats the mikedeering of old.;) Well detailed report, you have looked up a bit, havent you.

1989

LeMond indeed received no support from his weak team in the mountains, but since he never attacked he didn't need it! He did well to limit his losses to Figno on the harder stages, knowing he had a good chance of clawing back the deficit in the TTs.

I think when you look back at the last 20 TdF or so, you will find that very contrary to public belief the Tour is decided more in the time trials than in the mountains. LeMond, Indurain and Armstrong were all the best 'time trial riders' of their time (though I think Ullrich can be pretty equal to Armstrong with optimal preparation) and decided the Tour this way more often than not.

1990

He only achieved the win in the final TT - as usual LeMond did little in the mountains, content to follow rather than lead.

Also, what is even more important, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of competition in the mountains. The thumb rule is: In the plains go for it as a team, in the mountains and cols you are on your own. The underlying reason is that at 50 km/h four/fifth of a riders strenght is used to overcome wind resistance, thus in the windy plains teamwork is essential whereas this factor is of much less importance in the mountains. Therefore, its misleading to say LeMond was "content to follow rather than lead". He just had to make it over the mountains like anybody else on his own and he did it!

Of course, you can argue long into the night about whether LeMond would have been a force in 1987 and 198 without the shooting, just as you can claim that Ayrton Senna would have won every WDC since 1994 were it not for Imola that year! This is pure speculation.

I agree to a certain extent, but yet there is a marked difference in that with Schumacher a young rival emerged whose talent & skills suggested he was taking over from Senna thus putting a natural end to the Brazilians reign. Whereas in case of LeMond the fact that his tour wins bracketed the wins of Roche and Delgado suggests - very much like Schumachers wins bracketed the WDC of the second half of the nineties - that he would have been very well the man to beat also at the Tours he was absent. Would have Muhammed Ali also dominated the interim years he was banned from the sport or not?

[mikedeering]

I think when you look back at the last 20 TdF or so, you will find that very contrary to public belief the Tour is decided more in the time trials than in the mountains. LeMond, Indurain and Armstrong were all the best 'time trial riders' of their time (though I think Ullrich can be pretty equal to Armstrong with optimal preparation) and decided the Tour this way more often than not.

I totally agree - and it's a shame. Bring back Charly Gaul I say. Indurain also never won a mountain stage after 1990. He built his entire Tour on limiting losses in the mountains and then stuffing the likes of Chiappucci and Pantani for 5 minutes in every TT stage. Impressive stuff. Regarding your comment on Ullrich - presumably that preparation would not include a visit to a nightclub?

Also, what is even more important, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of competition in the mountains. The thumb rule is: In the plains go for it as a team, in the mountains and cols you are on your own. The underlying reason is that at 50 km/h four/fifth of a riders strenght is used to overcome wind resistance, thus in the windy plains teamwork is essential whereas this factor is of much less importance in the mountains. Therefore, its misleading to say LeMond was "content to follow rather than lead". He just had to make it over the mountains like anybody else on his own and he did it!

You watch Armstrong in the mountains, and you watch LeMond. Armstrong is dominant enough in the TTs that he doesn't have to attack on the mountain stages, he could be cautious and simply follow in the wheel tracks of his main rivals. They were the tactics of LeMond and they worked for him. But Armstrong is not LeMond - he doesn't simply follow in the mountains, he sets the pace. He attacks his rivals, even when wearing the yellow jersey. It is a matter of opinion obviously, but how a fan can say they prefer LeMond's style to that of Armstrong or Hinault is beyond me. Is it really more exciting to watch someone track their opponent, saving themselves for the TT, or is it better to watch them actually attack? I guess you compare the situation to an F1 driver (have to link this back to motor racing as this is TNF) who tracks his rival, waiting for the pitstops, rather than try and pass (Canada 2001 anyone). The end result is the same - victory, but the way it is achieved is completely different. I don't know if you are a football follower, but if you are I suspect you are a firm believer in catenaccio?

I agree to a certain extent, but yet there is a marked difference in that with Schumacher a young rival emerged whose talent & skills suggested he was taking over from Senna thus putting a natural end to the Brazilians reign. Whereas in case of LeMond the fact that his tour wins bracketed the wins of Roche and Delgado suggests - very much like Schumachers wins bracketed the WDC of the second half of the nineties - that he would have been very well the man to beat also at the Tours he was absent. Would have Muhammed Ali also dominated the interim years he was banned from the sport or not?

The Senna comment was in jest as some of the comments I have read on this BB suggest Senna really would still be winning WDCs today were it not for Imola 1994. It's very true that LeMond lost 2 of his prime years to injury, where as Senna was towards the end of his career in 1994. We can only speculate as to LeMond's performances in 1987 and 1988. I really can't believe he would have touched Pedro Delgado in 1988 - he wasn't a match for the Spaniard in 1989 without the huge head start he got. 1987 - who knows, but the impression from that year was that Roche was always prepared to dig that bit deeper than his rivals to ensure victory.

My complaint about LeMond, aside from his unconvincing display in the 90 TdF is his complete lack of success in any other race, bar the World RR. It's true that Merckx was a freak of nature and no one around could possibly hope to emulate his degree of success, and the sport has indeed evolved in much the same way that motor racing has (as you stated, F1 drivers now do not compete in non-championshiop F1, F2, F3, sportcars etc whenever they have a free weekend). However, more recent TdF winners have at least proved successful in other events. Indurain was a 2-time Giro winner, he set the hour record etc. Armstrong has won classics. LeMond won the TdF in 1990 and nothing else of note. Ditto in 1989. His earlier career I think he figured a bit more in the classics but IIRC never won one.

Considering he focused his entire season on the TdF, his victories were less than convincing. An 8 second win over Fignon in 1989 (Fignon of course had already won Milan-San Remo and Giro that year) and a defeat of the then unknown Chiappucci in 1990 were not brilliant displays. The guy only won 5 stages of the TdF in 8 attempts. Armstrong in recent years has been averaging 4 stage wins per Tour!

[holiday]

I totally agree - and it's a shame. Bring back Charly Gaul I say. Indurain also never won a mountain stage after 1990. He built his entire Tour on limiting losses in the mountains and then stuffing the likes of Chiappucci and Pantani for 5 minutes in every TT stage. Impressive stuff. Regarding your comment on Ullrich - presumably that preparation would not include a visit to a nightclub?;)

Hey, by the way Ullrich won at Easter Sunday an important race in Cologne/Germany in convincing fashion (leading 50 km and finishing 1:30 ahead of the field). Armstrong is alert- Ullrich is definitely going to be a force at the Tour! Unfortunately his team Coast is financially very unstable and giving him constant trouble from that side. If Armstrong for once is not Armstrong at the Tour and Ullrich has a fair share of luck on his side, he may have a chance. You read it here first!

I guess you compare the situation to an F1 driver (have to link this back to motor racing as this is TNF) who tracks his rival, waiting for the pitstops, rather than try and pass (Canada 2001 anyone). The end result is the same - victory, but the way it is achieved is completely different. I don't know if you are a football follower, but if you are I suspect you are a firm believer in catenaccio?

Funny, because on another forum I was recently talking with an Italian and firmly criticising the Italian catenaccio. Theoretically speaking, I would put it that way: If a f1-driver/cyclist wins by an attacking & spectacular style say 5 races/stages and another f1-driver/cyclist wins by an defensive & patient style 6 races/stages I would give the nod without hesitation to the latter one because his style has proven to be superior. I mean, if one style is per se superior to another, then why bothering to stage a race in the first place, just send the trophies beforehand via airmail! Now who is the more appealing driver for the crowds is an entirely different question and strictly to be separated. Ralf drove a very mature race at Canada and while I remember vividly the criticsm he received then I have read in recent times pretty positive comments about his race then. You see, success as such is recognized, sooner or sometimes later…

You watch Armstrong in the mountains, and you watch LeMond.

Hey, I dont know why this constantly comparing LeMond with Armstrong is taking place. You can go just as well all the way and compare Armstrong to Indurain or the Cannibal. Would put Armstrongs performances into perspective as well…..

Also I think there is more to LeMond than the pure racecraft. Ever looking for analogies I see similarities between LeMond and Niki Lauda. Lauda is IMO one of the very greatest, but not compellingly so for his racecraft alone. Rather he very much like LeMond was a very forward & creative thinking guy with a style which granted him winning races already before the red lights went green. Both LeMond and Lauda helpt a great deal to advance their respective sports professionally. Lauda brought regular testing schedules, emphasis on set-up & regular fitness training into f1, LeMond such inventions as already mentioned above. These things gave them for a sufficient time a valuable advantage about a more gifted, but less clever competitors. I cant see no fault in doing them so.

It's very true that LeMond lost 2 of his prime years to injury, where as Senna was towards the end of his career in 1994.

Honestly, I don’t think we outsiders have any way to know how much in the long term view of things the shooting accident and its effects did hamper LeMonds career. We just don’t know, he could have gone on to some more Tour wins.

My complaint about LeMond, aside from his unconvincing display in the 90 TdF is his complete lack of success in any other race, bar the World RR.

I have never seen a cycler which concentrated more exclusively on the TdF than Armstrong has. Has he ever competed (seriously) at Giro or Vuelta??? Ullrich at least joins these races half-seriously for preparation reasons. I remember Armstrongs TdF win two years ago when he was supposed to support Heras after the Spaniard supported him at the Tour. What did Armstrong? He canceled 2 weeks after Paris the remainder of his season “out of fatigue” and disappeared till next spring from the cycling scene.

Also, you have to keep in mind that Armstrong wasn’t always Armstrong in the past. His 1999 win was far from compellingly convincing as he himself was quick to admit. Neither Ullrich nor Pantani participated and if my memory serves me right, he won just a single stage. Ullrich also didn’t participate 2002, with Pantani emphatically being out of contention after his seemingly endless doping affairs. Now, has Armstrong the grand competition LeMond had?

[BRNDLL]

I actually prefer the attacking style of Armstrong over the "wait and see" style of Lemond and Indurain for that matter. I just hate to see people always say that these guys only race for the Tour... the life of a cyclist is never that black and white. The perception is thus but in reality, they race year round.

Now I have to say that I am not a huge Lemond fan but he did race in events other than the Tour and the Worlds.

You will notice that he did in fact race only a few months in 89 and later years but notice the years leading up to and including 85 and 86. He did most of the major classics and several smaller multi-day events as well as the Tour.

Here is his palmares:

1981 (équipe Renault)
1er de la Coors Classic (2 victoires d'étape)
3ème du Tour du Tarn
4ème du Dauphiné Libéré
5ème du Trophée des Grimpeurs
9ème du Tour de l'Oise
11ème du Critérium International

1982 (équipe Renault)
1er du Tour de l'Avenir (3 victoires d'étape)
2ème des Championnats du monde sur route
2ème du Tour Méditerranéen
3ème du Tour de Corse
3ème de Tirreno-Adriatico (1 victoire d'étape)
3ème du Grand-Prix de Rennes
17ème de Milan-San Remo

1983 (équipe Renault)
1er des Championnats du monde sur route
1er du Dauphiné Libéré (3 victoires d'étape)
1er du Critérium des Critérium des As
1er du Trophée Super Prestige Pernod
1 victoire d'étape dans le Tour Méditerranéen
2ème du Grand Prix des Nations
2ème du Tour de Lombardie
4ème du Tour de Suisse
10ème de Tirreno Adriatico
10ème de la la Flèche Wallone
12ème de Ghent-Wevelgem
12ème de Paris-Brussels

1984 (équipe Renault)
3ème du Dauphiné Libéré (1 victoire d'étape)
3ème du Tour de France
3rd Liège-Bastogne-Liège
5ème de Tirreno-Adriatico
7ème du Tour des Pays-Bas
8ème du Critérium International
9ème de Ghent-Wevelgem
15ème du Tour des Flandres

1985 (équipe La Vie Claire)
1er de la Coors Classic
2ème du Tour de France (1 victoire détape)
2ème du Tour du Pays Basque
2ème des Championnats du monde sur route
3ème du Giro
4ème du Het Volk
4ème du Critérium International
4ème du Paris-Roubaix
5ème du Tour de Valence
6ème du Tour Méditerranéen
7ème du Tour des Flandres
17ème de Liège-Bastogne-Liège
18ème de Ghent Wevelgem

1986 (équipe La Vie Claire)
1er du Tour de France (1 victoire d'étape)
1er du Critérium de Lisieux
1er du Critérium de Stiphout
1 victoire d'étape au Tour de Valence
2ème de Milan-San Remo
2ème de la Coors Classic (1 victoire d'étape)
3ème de Paris-Nice
3ème du Critérium International
3ème du Tour de Suisse
4ème du Giro (1 victoire d'étape)
4ème du Championnat de Zurich
5ème de la Flèche Wallone
6ème du Tour de Valence
7ème des Championnats du monde sur route
11ème du Tour des Flandres
14ème de Liège-Bastogne-Liège
19ème de Ghent-Wevelgem

1987 (équipe Toshiba)
19ème du Het Volk

1988 (équipe PDM)
4ème du Tour des Amériques

1989 (équipe ADR)
1er du Tour de France (3 victoires d'étapes)
1er des Championnats du monde sur route
1er du Critérium d'Amiens
1er du Critérium de Callac
1er du Critérium de Linne
1er du Critérium d'Emmen
1er du Critérium de Leves
3ème du Tour des Amériques
4ème du Critérium International
4ème du Grand Prix de Montréal
6ème de Tirreno-Adriatico
7ème du Tour of the Mining Valleys
17ème du Het Volk
Elu sportif de l'année par le magazine Sports Illustrated

1990 (équipe Z)
1er du Tour de France
1er du Critérium de Dijon
1er du Critérium de Lombron
2ème du Championnat de Zurich
4ème des Championnats du monde sur route
10ème du Tour de Suisse

1991 (équipe Z)
1er du Critérium de Callac
7ème du Tour de France

1992 (équipe Z)
1er du Tour DuPont (1 victoire d'étape)
2ème du Tour d'Armorique
4ème du Tour de Suisse
9ème de Paris-Roubaix
11ème du Dauphiné Libéré

1993 (équipe Gan)
13ème des 3 Jours de la Panne

1994 (équipe Gan)
8ème du First Union Grand Prix
11ème des 3 Jours de la Panne

[Eau Red]

[i]Origin

My complaint about LeMond, aside from his unconvincing display in the 90 TdF is his complete lack of success in any other race, bar the World RR. It's true that Merckx was a freak of nature and no one around could possibly hope to emulate his degree of success, and the sport has indeed evolved in much the same way that motor racing has (as you stated, F1 drivers now do not compete in non-championshiop F1, F2, F3, sportcars etc whenever they have a free weekend). However, more recent TdF winners have at least proved successful in other events. Indurain was a 2-time Giro winner, he set the hour record etc. Armstrong has won classics. LeMond won the TdF in 1990 and nothing else of note. Ditto in 1989. His earlier career I think he figured a bit more in the classics but IIRC never won one. [/B]

1. There will never be another Merckx. Training methods are too good now... huge natural talent can't blow away the competition like it used to. Too many riders are too close to human performance limits. Hinault was the closest we'll get to another Merckx.

2. LeMond won the Super Prestige cup one of those early years (edit: 1983-- thanks for posting his palmares), which is the equivalent of the current World Cup. In other words, best overall rider in the major one day races. Can you imagine Armstrong winning the World Cup today? Lance fighting with Museeuw & Tafi at Paris-Roubaix?

3. LeMond has said many times that after his shooting accident, he only had a couple of months where he felt good on the bike. 2 Tours de France and a world championship in that time isn't bad, for a guy with mitochondrial myopathy & lead pellets in his body.

4. LeMond DID win the 1990 Tour with an attack.. on the Tourmalet, on which he rode everyone but Indurain off his wheel.

[holiday]

Originally posted by Eau Red
1. There will never be another Merckx. Training methods are too good now... huge natural talent can't blow away the competition like it used to. Too many riders are too close to human performance limits.

Spot on. When everybody is competing at his limits, the gap between the natural talented greats and the rest diminishes dramatically. There can be no Eddie Merckx anymore in todays cycling, like there can be no Jim Clark in todays motor racing.

[BRNDLL]

Spot on, this is what I meant to convey when I put this ( I quote myself ;] )

Originally posted by BRNDLL

As for how the current cyclists race the season, I have seen countless quotes from the Cannibal himself that cycling has changed, his son showing that genetics only carry you so far. I have ultimate respect for the cycling greats and I would rate Greg Lemond on the list, not at the top mind you, but on the list.


bb

The dominance seen in decades past is gone.

On another note, It is great to see that there are cycling fans also interested in F1. I often tell my wife that I really only need the tele for the F1 season (every other weekend), the Classics ( a few days in the Spring) and July for the Tour coverage. I am in the US so Outdoor Life Network and Speed Channel are the most excercised channels on my remote.

bb

[masterhit]

Greg Lemond - arguably one of the best all round endurance cyclists of all time.

Anyone of those who do so professionally has my attention - my Dad used to race at amateur level and won a few events. (He also raced MV Agusta and Matchless motorcycles but that's going way off topic)

Anybody who race cycles professionally, over such incredible distances at such amazing speeds - well... what can you say except it is awesome. There aren't words to describe how impressive it is.

[holiday]

Originally posted by BRNDLL
On another note, It is great to see that there are cycling fans also interested in F1.

I would even go further and say that without being interested in another sports too and from there on kind of developing an all rounder understanding of the nature of sports & competition, ones opinions on formula1 remain rather superficial. You can outright sense at times when your discussion partners are only interested in motor sports and nothing else. It shows in their postings and its 'contents'.

Noted you are from Austin. Isnt this Armstrong-land?

[BRNDLL]

Good points Holiday...

Yes I live here in Austin. I moved here before Lance did and I have raced bikes on and off for 14 years or so. One of the reasons I moved here is because the bicycle racing in this state is of a very high caliber and has been for lots of years. I have even ridden with the man a few times. We have a few mutual friends.

I have slowed a bit in my mid-thirties so the last few seasons have been spotty as we have little ones and they can be time consuming.

Good to chat with you guys.

bb

[JohnS]

I was a huge admirer of Lemond, one of the reasons being that he was competing successfully against a peloton where drug use was rife. Loads of his main rivals at the time, people like Sean Kelly, Laurent Fignon, Phil Anderson, Robert Millar and Pedro Delgado, failed drug tests.

Lemond himself was widely believed to be clean (along with a few others like Charly Mottet and later on Chris Boardman) and perhaps that's why his career tailed off between 1991 and 1994, which was when the use of EPO exploded in the professional ranks.

John

[holiday]

BRNDLL

One of the reasons I moved here is because the bicycle racing in this state is of a very high caliber and has been for lots of years.

So even long before the Armstrong era, I take it?

Originally posted by JohnS
Lemond himself was widely believed to be clean (along with a few others like Charly Mottet and later on Chris Boardman) and perhaps that's why his career tailed off between 1991 and 1994, which was when the use of EPO exploded in the professional ranks.

Good point. There was that infamous stage with Chiappucci at the 1992 TdF where the Italien led for more than 100 kilometers alone. There are reports from cyclers (Udo Bölts for one) who say they just couldnt keep up with Chiappucci when the Cols came, it was impossible for them, he just pulled away irresistibly. I think in retroperspective it got down as the first demonstration of the spread of the use of EPO in cycling. And to be honest, when taking EPO can make such a performance difference how can we hope that todays top cyclers are clean?

[JohnS]

Originally posted by holiday



Good point. There was that infamous stage with Chiappucci at the 1992 TdF where the Italien led for more than 100 kilometers alone. There are reports from cyclers (Udo Bölts for one) who say they just couldnt keep up with Chiappucci when the Cols came, it was impossible for them, he just pulled away irresistibly. I think in retroperspective it got down as the first demonstration of the spread of the use of EPO in cycling. And to be honest, when taking EPO can make such a performance difference how can we hope that todays top cyclers are clean?

I was on Alpe d'Huez the day following the stage you mention. Everyone thought Chiappucci would be completely shattered but instead he rode up beside Indurain, fresh as a daisy. In retrospect it was literally too good to be true. Shame, because at the time I remember cheering Chiappucci long and loud for one of the most amazing performances anyone had ever seen.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by holiday
I think in retroperspective it got down as the first demonstration of the spread of the use of EPO in cycling. And to be honest, when taking EPO can make such a performance difference how can we hope that todays top cyclers are clean?

We still don't know if it was EPO or not or something else, there's simply no proof. So let's be cautious. Still, I find the results of -for instance- the Italian Gewiss team of the early/mid nineties suspicious, to say the least.
About today's results: let's keep in mind that there is absolutely no other sport like cycling when it comes to doping control. There are so many tests, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of competitors don't cheat (which is something else than "never use drugs/perfomance enhancing products" - quite a few of them use prescribed medication e.g. against astma; but how many of us use these kinds of medication as well?)

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by JohnS


I was on Alpe d'Huez the day following the stage you mention. Everyone thought Chiappucci would be completely shattered but instead he rode up beside Indurain, fresh as a daisy.

Well, just from watching TV that day: I wouldn't call him fresh as a daisy - and neither was Indurain! That Sestrieres stage took its toll. Ideal chance for other climbers, and a great day for Andrew Hampstean....

[BRNDLL]

Originally posted by scheivlak


We still don't know if it was EPO or not or something else, there's simply no proof. So let's be cautious. Still, I find the results of -for instance- the Italian Gewiss team of the early/mid nineties suspicious, to say the least.
About today's results: let's keep in mind that there is absolutely no other sport like cycling when it comes to doping control. There are so many tests, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of competitors don't cheat (which is something else than "never use drugs/perfomance enhancing products" - quite a few of them use prescribed medication e.g. against astma; but how many of us use these kinds of medication as well?)

Good point Scheivlak.
I cant wait for other sports to start testing as rigidly as cycling has been tested in the last decades. It might lower the amounts of some of the obscene contracts seen in some American sports. I guarantee that the american football, baseball and probably basketball stars will not be the "heroes" people make them out to be if the were tested as strictly as cyclists. Our Olympic athletes? I have my doubts. I recently saw a Carl Lewis headline about a failed drug screen.

bb

[Real Estate Queen]

Being Colombian, I couldn't resist the topic. I have to chip in.
I believe Le Mond was ready to win the tour in 85, and only resisted his temptation out of respect, and, because of Hinault's display that year at the Giro, which was a major psychological blow to all the other rivals (excluding LeMond of course). Especially after creaming Moser in the TTs. Everybody was expecting Moser to naturally win the TTs, and then came Hinault and shut everybody up. Another big help that Hinault had in that year's Tour was that nobody could match Herrera and Parra in the mountain stages with their blistering pace, so it was easier for him to keep everybody in check.
Nobody can be sure, but I also think that LeMond would have gone on to win 87 and 88. The Tour is not a one day race, and in recent years, once you get the "hang of winning it", and have a good team, your chances of winning again are very high, unless you are going downhill (excuse the pun) in your career.
I think the comparison that Mike makes between an F1 race and the Tour does not apply completely. I think an F1 race is more like a Paris-Roubaix type of race, whereas the Tour is more like the WDC at the end of the season. Having said that, I think that the way Armstrong attacks is very exciting, and only make his overall wins all the more valuable.
This year I am of course cheering for Santiago Botero.

GO JPM GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALLEZ BOTERO ALLEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Michael Oliver]

Originally posted by scheivlak


We still don't know if it was EPO or not or something else, there's simply no proof. So let's be cautious. Still, I find the results of -for instance- the Italian Gewiss team of the early/mid nineties suspicious, to say the least.
About today's results: let's keep in mind that there is absolutely no other sport like cycling when it comes to doping control. There are so many tests, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of competitors don't cheat (which is something else than "never use drugs/perfomance enhancing products" - quite a few of them use prescribed medication e.g. against astma; but how many of us use these kinds of medication as well?)

As somebody with direct experience of racing as a pro in the mid-1980s (I rode in the UK mostly, occasionally in Europe and also competed in the 1987 Kelloggs Tour of Britain), I would question your statement about the possibilities for cheating

I saw and heard of a number of practices which go on and, while I'm sure things have been tightened up in the 1990s and more recently, the fact that so many people are still being caught suggests that doping is still widespread in pro cycling. What depresses me is that the sport allows people to come back and compete at the highest level even when they are proven cheats. For me the likes of Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle etc. are forever tainted and I am so cynical now about performances of riders that I barely follow the sport any more...

Anyway, I've gone back to my first love now, motor racing, although you could argue that this is another sport where cheating is rife I guess it just goes to show that where the financial rewards for success are high, some people will go to extraordinary lengths to win.

Michael Oliver

[holiday]

Ullrich was found guilty of taking amphetamins and was controlled exactly the day after he allegedly took them during a disco visit. Amphetamins are certainly not performance enhancing, in fact quite the opposite is true.

[Michael Oliver]

Originally posted by holiday
Ullrich was found guilty of taking amphetamins and was controlled exactly the day after he allegedly took them during a disco visit. Amphetamins are certainly not performance enhancing, in fact quite the opposite is true.

Well, they are still on the list, arent' they, so anyone (particularly at Ullrich's level) who takes them knows the risk and would have to be pretty stupid to take them, wouldn't they?

If you took amphetamines and got dope-tested after a race, you will be found positive, no question.

Michael

[holiday]

Sure, I just wanted to point out that Ullrich shot into his own foot. He took the drugs not in the Virenque way, that is to enhance his cycling performance, but rather in the Jim Morisson way to enhance his spirituality...

[wildman]

Tom Simpson certainly believed that amphetamines were performance enhancers....

[JohnS]

Originally posted by wildman
Tom Simpson certainly believed that amphetamines were performance enhancers....

... as did Paul Kimmage's teammates, if you've read "A Rough Ride".

[jdanton]

Originally posted by BRNDLL
holiday... good points all.

Yes I did mean those V shaped bars. Up until that point, most all time trials were done on what is reffered to as "bull horn" bars which at the time were nothing more than normal drop bars, sawed off and flipped over. This provided a lower mount, a single position and a lighter setup.

The "aero" bars used by Lemond were actually in use already on the triathalon circuit at the time but no one had yet attempted to use them in professional cycling. Lemond and his director had to lobby the Societe' (tour organization) to allow them the night before I believe. I think he used the clip on type which are really just forward extensions bolted to "cow horn" bars with a brace at the ends. This enabled a more stretched postion and better aerodynamic's for rider and bike.
Again, very forward thinking at the time.

bb

Actually the US based 7-11 team had used them at the Giro. Fignon even had the option of using them, but turned them down.

The Euros tend to be behind the technological curve in cycling. (As opposed to auto racing)

[masterhit]

At the risk of offending anybody, drugs or not, what they do is still amazing.

[holiday]

Originally posted by masterhit
At the risk of offending anybody, drugs or not, what they do is still amazing.

Absolutely. The time trial today was from another star. The futuristic helmets, the cycle and these uni-coloured gaiters - Crazy. Boy, I am so happy for Ullrich, he has truly earned this stage win. Now the Tour is great wide open and it has been a Great Tour so far. Tomorrow in the Pyrennees it will be a bellum omnium contra omnes. I am extremely looking forward to it.


Cheers mates
Superullrich

[fines]

Sadly, I can't agree with this view, le tour ended the moment Beloki fell from his bike. Now there's no contest anymore.

[holiday]

Originally posted by fines
Sadly, I can't agree with this view, le tour ended the moment Beloki fell from his bike. Now there's no contest anymore.

In a sense you are right. Beloki was the main challenger to Armstrong up to then and I have seen his horrible crash 'live'. Still, I think the show has to go on.

[JohnS]

Originally posted by fines
Sadly, I can't agree with this view, le tour ended the moment Beloki fell from his bike. Now there's no contest anymore.

No contest? Are you serious? This is the closest and most exciting tour in years!

Considering that Armstrong's climbing is not what it was in previous years (judging by his performance in the Alps), and we are now looking at 3 enormous mountain stages in the Pyrenees, the yellow jersey is absolutely still up for grabs.

Sure it's a shame that Beloki's out, but any one of Ullrich, Vinokourov, Mayo or Hamilton could still win.

[fines]

Mayo maybe, but none of the other.

[fines]

Questions, anyone?;)

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by fines
Questions, anyone?;)

You sure don't think that Beloki would have a chance?

[JacnGille]

IMO, today's stage will be talked about for years to come!

[fines]

Originally posted by scheivlak


You sure don't think that Beloki would have a chance?

Oh yes! Armstrong's in bad shape, I guess Beloki would've defeated him.

[holiday]

Originally posted by fines

Oh yes! Armstrong's in bad shape, I guess Beloki would've defeated him.

Now imagine what Ullrich in his best shape would have accomplished...