More virtual wins for Greggo
Plano Dude
PEZ: Who impressed you the most during your career?
ST: Greg Lemond, by a mile; he's the most talented natural cyclist
I've ever encountered - he could have won the Tour de france when he
was 17, I think.
Brad Anders
That's a great article. Tilford's obviously insane, but aren't we
all?
I agree with his comment on LemonD. Too bad he got lazy and fat and
ended his career prematurely, copped a disease to explain it, and then
became such a dickhead.
Brad Anders
Ryan Cousineau
You know, I have to say one teeny tiny thing about the "Greg's a dick"
trope: Greg's explanation of the cycling universe appears to be
reality-based.
You don't have to like what he says, or how he says it, but on the
odds, he is more right than wrong.
Did he say he could have won 5 tours? Yes he did. But he also said
"you can't rewrite racing history." And maybe a cynic gives him a
"virtual loss" for his technologically aided victory against Fignon.
But he was unlucky to get shot in the peak of his career*. Did he get
lazy and fat? I can't comment on lazy, but fat Eddy was at least as
fat as fat Greg. And is his assessment of the prevalence of doping in
pro cycling today correct? All signs point to yes. And every passing
event seems to be more confirmation that he's right.
The difference between Lemond and most retired riders is he doesn't
dissemble. If you ask him what the doping situation in cycling is, he
gives an honest answer.
Is he obsessed with Lance? I'd bet that most media interviewers of
Lemond bring up Lance's name before he does. It's the same metric as
any of us Norteamericano cycling fans: the most likely question a non-
cycling acquaintance will ask you upon hearing of your interest in
bike racing: "so, did Lance dope?"
Great article, though.
*In terms of mid-career unluckiness and virtual GC wins, Gino Bartali
is the eternal champion. You can hardly claim he would have won all
the WW2-suspended Giros and Tours, but he did win both races on both
sides of the war.
RicodJour
> On Oct 28, 7:36 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with his comment on LemonD. Too bad he got lazy and fat and
> > ended his career prematurely, copped a disease to explain it, and then
> > became such a dickhead.
>
> You know, I have to say one teeny tiny thing about the "Greg's a dick"
> trope: Greg's explanation of the cycling universe appears to be
> reality-based.
>
> You don't have to like what he says, or how he says it, but on the
> odds, he is more right than wrong.
That's his most annoying feature (it's not a bug). If he weren't such
a dick, people would have little problem with his message and wouldn't
even call the fat bastard fat.
I'm with Henry on this one. Greg was my cycling hero. First
American, dramatic victories, lots of cycling drama, and the kid from
the cornfield type of looks. He should have been a permanent fixture
on the Wheaties box -fuck those stupid gymnasts and swimmers! Then he
had to go and become a dick and ruin it for me and everyone else.
That's probably why his BIL shot him.
R
Brad Anders
Here are some interesting blog articles that discuss Lemond's decline:
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/73
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/88
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/99
Brad Anders
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> > I agree with his comment on LemonD. Too bad he got lazy and fat and
> > ended his career prematurely, copped a disease to explain it, and then
> > became such a dickhead.
>
> You know, I have to say one teeny tiny thing about the "Greg's a dick"
> trope: Greg's explanation of the cycling universe appears to be
> reality-based.
>
> You don't have to like what he says, or how he says it, but on the
> odds, he is more right than wrong.
The problem is - watch that video of his speech again,
the "brain fart" speech. He's probably right on all the
facts, they are a bunch of dirty dog dopers. But he's
right for the wrong reasons. And that's not really being
right, or honest, which is why I think you're giving him too
much credit when you say he gives honest answers.
He knows things that he doesn't know.
Excess certainty is a problem. Nobody ever wins
an argument by saying "I have some evidence but I'm
only 90-95% confident." Look at the climate change or
helmet debates again.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:463ab733-96e1-4f8b...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Maybe not 17, but he was incredibly talented. This is one of the few
areas that I can pull an rbr trump card and claim that I recognized his
talents earlier than most-
http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/images/ccjuly76lemond.jpg
The dirt, the relationships, who called the shots, there were a bunch of
us juniors who knew what was going on and wondered how it would all play
out. He was in a different league than most of us (Tom Ritchey probbaly
came closest , as a junior, to Greg's talent). I never once wondered if
I could play the game at his level, but my father did. Once in a while
he'd make a comment that he wished we were financially well-enough off
that I didn't have to work and could spend more time training. To me,
that was a different world. I went to school regular hours, and raced
often enough that it was part of my training, while working about 20
hours a week (this was as a junior in high school). I never, ever,
thought of the possibility to doing a cycling gig full time.
Greg, and a few others, were a bit better off (financially), and had
parents who, to varying degrees, lived their past vicariously through
their kids (think old-man Stetina for one of the more-extreme examples
of the day). Is that support from parents a significant factor in sports
success? But I also have to wonder to what extent that sort of shielded,
focused life at a young age could be responsible for some of the dark
stuff Greg says went on while growing up.
Regarding Greg and his current fixation on doping in cycling, here's
where I have trouble with it. He focuses almost entirely on the current
generation, while it was rampant when he was racing. Somehow he is more
of an authority on cycling today, what goes on inside the peloton, than
he was back then. Why? Why does he not attack the methods and ethics of
those he raced against? Why does he attach himself to Walsh et al
instead of those who have documented the mis-deeds of his own era?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
RicodJour
wrote:
> "Plano Dude" <tx.wastel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=8778
>
> > PEZ: Who impressed you the most during your career?
> > ST: Greg Lemond, by a mile; he's the most talented natural cyclist
> > I've ever encountered - he could have won the Tour de france when he
> > was 17, I think.
>
> Maybe not 17, but he was incredibly talented. This is one of the few
> areas that I can pull an rbr trump card and claim that I recognized his
You ever try pointing a finger at yourself? It hurts. It strains the
muscles and ligaments. People get injured that way.
Good post, BTW, even though you candyassed and didn't say Greg was the
future of cycling and would win the TdF at least once. ;)
R
--D-y
wrote:
> Greg, and a few others, were a bit better off (financially), and had
> parents who, to varying degrees, lived their past vicariously through
> their kids (think old-man Stetina for one of the more-extreme examples
> of the day). Is that support from parents a significant factor in sports
> success? But I also have to wonder to what extent that sort of shielded,
> focused life at a young age could be responsible for some of the dark
> stuff Greg says went on while growing up.
That sense of entitlement certainly was cultivated. Same with the
Stetinas.
I never saw the Lemonds in action, but, living in the Midwest, I
certainly saw the Stetinas at work. Entitlement all over the place.
"Ungraceful", when they could have afforded some largesse. Somebody
said something, possibly about what was going on out on the course
("not a crumb for the locals" at a mid-state BAR race in Illinois,
where Troy had joined the Wayne n' Dale Show) and Roy erupted "He does
well, so he's an asshole!?!??!, all red-faced. No, Roy it's not
because he did well (whichever particular one of the Holy Sons "did
well") that someone objected to his behavior, it was because he was
"acting like an asshole that somebody called him an asshole", to put
it in Daddy Roy's own terms. (I didn't hear the outburst-triggering
comment clearly but I didn't hear "asshole", either, btw.)
This occurred sometime after, as was related to me, Roy was barred
from the lead car at least in certain Districts at least when certain
District Representatives were around.
And there we have Greg: arrogant sense of entitlement, lack of grace
(and smarts, AKA "common sense", emphasis on "common"). He could be
115% correct about everything he ever said, but he just made things
worse, short term, and probably made things worse long-term, too.
Pandering to the Press in order to unseat The Usurper. The Brain Fart
episode is Exhibit #1 IMHO, especially in light of the fact that
Lemond fits the Doper Profile, himself, and at least some of those
avid "insider" listeners know that very well. Armstrong stepped on
some toes, right or wrong, and following, it's "any means, fair or
foul" to bring him down, in some quarters.
> Regarding Greg and his current fixation on doping in cycling, here's
> where I have trouble with it. He focuses almost entirely on the current
> generation, while it was rampant when he was racing. Somehow he is more
> of an authority on cycling today, what goes on inside the peloton, than
> he was back then. Why? Why does he not attack the methods and ethics of
> those he raced against? Why does he attach himself to Walsh et al
> instead of those who have documented the mis-deeds of his own era?
It seems from here that it would be good for Greg if not too many
rocks were turned over IRT his era, for one thing.
For another, his old enemies aren't The Usurper ("he of the lesser VO2
max", Greg's Certification of Entitlement).
--D-y
Fred Fredburger
> Is he obsessed with Lance? I'd bet that most media interviewers of
> Lemond bring up Lance's name before he does. It's the same metric as
> any of us Norteamericano cycling fans: the most likely question a non-
> cycling acquaintance will ask you upon hearing of your interest in
> bike racing: "so, did Lance dope?"
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
I cannot find the part where "the media" drags Lemond into the room and
forces him to confront Armstrong. Lemond seems eager to do be there.
I understand that the media is a convenient whipping boy, but let's not
confuse that with actual responsibility.
RicodJour
wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > Is he obsessed with Lance? I'd bet that most media interviewers of
> > Lemond bring up Lance's name before he does. It's the same metric as
> > any of us Norteamericano cycling fans: the most likely question a non-
> > cycling acquaintance will ask you upon hearing of your interest in
> > bike racing: "so, did Lance dope?"
>
> Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
>
> I cannot find the part where "the media" drags Lemond into the room and
> forces him to confront Armstrong. Lemond seems eager to do be there.
There's nothing wrong with being eager to be there. There is nothing
wrong with making a point and asking a question. There is something
wrong with not shutting up when your time is over. That's Greg's
problem. He doesn't know when to shut up.
R
Ryan Cousineau
I would like to compliment rbi on it's cogent responses in this
thread, so much better than the answers to my helmet queries. I admit
I had completely forgotten about Greg's gym-teacher science lecture.
That said, a few of you continued to be unhappy with how Greg presents
himself. When did rbr become a tea room? This is the venue of good
arguments presented badly. I defend Greg's right to be weird while
pursuing the truth.
Also, I still think amateur bike racing is cooler than pro racing, but
watching the start of the Elite Men's race at Starcrossed was
amazing. The front half of the field appeared to be motorized.
Frederick the Great
<1108a21e-a4bc-49bb...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:26 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2:03 pm, Fred Fredburger <I...@just.dont.know.anymore>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > Is he obsessed with Lance? I'd bet that most media interviewers of
> > > > Lemond bring up Lance's name before he does. It's the same metric as
> > > > any of us Norteamericano cycling fans: the most likely question a non-
> > > > cycling acquaintance will ask you upon hearing of your interest in
> > > > bike racing: "so, did Lance dope?"
> >
> > > Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
> >
> > > I cannot find the part where "the media" drags Lemond into the room and
> > > forces him to confront Armstrong. Lemond seems eager to do be there.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with being eager to be there. There is nothing
> > wrong with making a point and asking a question. There is something
> > wrong with not shutting up when your time is over. That's Greg's
> > problem. He doesn't know when to shut up.
> >
> > R
>
> I would like to compliment rbi on it's cogent responses in this
> thread, so much better than the answers to my helmet queries. I admit
> I had completely forgotten about Greg's gym-teacher science lecture.
>
> That said, a few of you continued to be unhappy with how Greg presents
> himself.
I am unhappy because he took a gift and dragged it in
the dirt; and because he is entirely unencumbered with
self awareness or charity.
> When did rbr become a tea room? This is the venue of good
> arguments presented badly. I defend Greg's right to be weird while
> pursuing the truth.
>
> Also, I still think amateur bike racing is cooler than pro racing, but
> watching the start of the Elite Men's race at Starcrossed was
> amazing. The front half of the field appeared to be motorized.
In this case, appearances are not deceiving.
--
Old Fritz