We tend to look at cycling through rose-tinted glasses; cycling-specific ones that not only give us a cheery outlook on the past, but ones that conveniently hold big black bars over the bits we prefer not to remember as they were because they don’t fit into the picture we’ve formed in our minds. One of the most interesting things about a community like Velominati is all the different viewpoints that come together regarding events past that help remind us of something approaching reality, built from an aggregation international of views. Perhaps even more interesting is how this experience also brings into sharp relief the evolution of the “facts” as we each have seen them at different points in our lives.
A prime example is of the discussion earlier this week regarding the Lenault battle in 1986. The American view predominantly held was that LeMond was short-changed by Hinault, while the Europeans (or at least the French) could see no reason Hinault should acquiesce the Tour should he be in a position to win it. Certainly not from an American. The Aussies, of course, feel Phil Anderson or, barring that, Phil Ligget or someone else named Phil – regardless of nationality – should have won it, and the Kiwis are no doubt still busy looking for a Tour contender who doesn’t ride a bike. At the time, I hated Hinault and characterized him as a cheating douchenozzle; these days, I regard him as one of the greatest examples of a complete rider and a model of what riders today should aspire to be.
The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle and after we boil the ocean of the ’86 Tour, we’re left with two great riders on one team who were so closely matched they each could have won that year. But the promises made the year before and the reality of the race situation on the road were like water and oil, and by the time the race reached l’Alpe d’Huez, the team, the fans, and the countries had polarized towards one end or the other, each choosing the side that matched most closely the version of the facts that helped them feel more at ease with their loyalties.
As controversies have a tendency to, they overshadow one of the most unique rides to the top of l’Alpe d’Huez in the history of the great climb. In my memory, Hinault attacked on the descent from either the Col de la Croix de Fer or the Glandon. (Maybe he attacked at the base, as WikiPedia suggests, but I don’t remember it that way.) Only LeMond had an answer, and the teammates escaped together to ride the mythical 21 hairpins together. I can’t think of another time when two G.C. riders – let alone two teammates – outclassed everyone else in the race up this climb.
Up and up they rode together – the Badger in his distinct style and LeMan in his – with only their pain, their massive gears, their rocking shoulders, and their resentment for each other as company. Hand-in-hand they crossed the finish line as happy team mates, LeMond gifting the stage to his patron in the end. But beneath the surface boiled a fearsome rivalry and within minutes Hinault and LeMond’s dashing alter-ego, LeMelvis, traded blows in the press. And with that, the great ride was almost immediately eclipsed by polemics.
In the end, LeMond overcame a tampered-with TT bike to win the Tour and Hinault retired as arguably the most successful Tour de France rider at the time. The record is set but the facts become more malleable with time. The rest we see with our rose-tinted glasses.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
Oh yeah - to my mind the above footage shows a super rider pacing LeMond all the way to the top. If LeMond didn't gift him the stage, it would have been very bad form indeed.
Imagine Sherwen commentating,
"And look, all who remain are the two undisputed heads of state. The venerable French king doing all the work for his young protege, blah blah.
Hinault was definitely playing the team man in that stage.
Love the gears they were pushing and the rocking shoulders - wonder whether today's more stable upper bodies relate more to smaller gears, lighter bikes or improved core strength (pretty sure le Blaireau wouldn't have been found doing planks in his hotel room after stages...).
Pardon the shift of the topic of the thread to a different tour, but could someone lend some historical perspective to the stage that, at least to Lemond's recollection, was the source of Hinault's promise to ride for him in 1986 - stage 17 from Toulouse to Luz-Ardiden the previous year.
Lemond claims conspiracy between team owner and coach (Kochli). Kochli claims otherwise saying he gave the "thumbs up" to an attack from Lemond. However this message may have been lost in translation through Hinault confidant Le Guilloux in the team car.
The 1985 tour was a year before cycling started to penetrate my consciousness, so all I have are retellings.
Regards.
Great history lesson, thanks for the discussion folks.
@Mike S
I think from memory the reasoning was that if LeMond had persisted in his attack he would have put Stephen Roche into a close 2nd place, and made him a much more dangerous threat for the Maillot Jaune.
Despite Greg's innate belief in his abilities, the classy Roche was running red hot that year - even though LeMond most likely could have beaten him there was no guarantee yet that he would, at least in Koechli's eyes.
As it turned out Roche finished in third behind Hinault and LeMond.
@mcsqueak
Agreed. Its the history that keeps me coming back. I am still very new to the sport.
@Buck Rogers
Hey Buck,so you're a door-kicker, eh? Well back in my day with the thump in my hands at the doorway...winning was what counts. Yeah,don't get me wrong integrity to your word is vital, but this is bike racing not polly-anna's tea party.
@Buck Rogers
excuse my ignorance, what is an SF soldier, special forces? If so mucho respecto. Our Aussie soldiers, esp the special forces equivalent, have had a really shit run over the last month...
*thumper*
Where was I???
And the Badger did what it took to win, kinda like a gunfight, don't bring a knife, bring friends with more guns. Did Boston score again...
And Frank, respectfully, in the words of Carlos Sastre,"don't talk to me about no chain..."
@Buck
Just knockin' the piss eh
@Dan_R
Good stuff, Brother! I am actually a surgeon for 5th group out of Campbell (2/5th SFG(A) with 2 trips to OIF) and was with 3rd Group for a while in Afghan in '06. Yeah, the team guys let me into the stack once in a while but mostly have me hang out in the Alpha's vehicle in case they catch something on target.
As for "And the Badger did what it took to win, kinda like a gunfight, don't bring a knife, bring friends with more guns" the best quote I have learned yet from my days running with the ODA's is that "If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong." I think the Badger would agree with that quote! :)
As for Aussie SF, I worked with those dudes in Afghan in Tarin Kaut in late summer '06. Fuckin hardcore and totally crazy. I LOVE those guys!!!
When it comes down to it, I realize it is not a firefight but the whole integrity thing always gets me. I had such trouble in SERE school at McCall b/c I could not lie for shit. Now I am not a saint by any means, but I just have a thing about promises and lying.
Great discussion, even with all the crazy sidebars!