Armstrong's victory yesterday was one of the greatest accomplishments in sports and has inspired a lot of greatest-ever stories. As someone said in another post, great sporting accomplishments can't ultimately be ranked, but it still leaves me wondering whether what Lemond accomplished isn't getting enough consideration.

As someone who got into racing through watching John Tesh musical versions of the tour (for all those complaining about OLN look for CBS broadcasts of the tour circa 1985), I think Lemond is still the greatest American cyclist ever-it's more than just 3 tours against 7.

Armstrong talks about the importance of a strong team, but the only time Lemond had a strong team they worked against him-in 85 his coach lied to him, telling him Hinault was close behind and made him wait, essentially making him hand over the tour to Hinault. In 86, Hinault attacked him and Lemond had to win against him and against a hostile French crowd. If anyone has video from that time, check out how much stress Lemond was under leading into the final time trial--totally isolated. Beating a French icon in France on your same team to become the first non-European to win the tour is an amazing accomplishment. They both suffered horrible off the bike setbacks, and it's impossible to compare Lemond's shooting accident to Armstrong's cancer, except that Armstrong came back stronger whereas Lemond never seemed to recover the form of 86.. but the biggest difference was that Armstrong got into a supportive team that rode strongly for him. Lemond had no team support for his comeback-he was on a minor ADR team and had to cover every attack from Fignon himself. His victory by 8 seconds still ranks, I think, as the greatest comeback in the tour and he had to do this by beating yet another French hero who worked the press and crowd against Lemond throughout the tour.

Armstrong made a big deal of what a great rival Ullrich was in his podium speech. But does Ullrich really compare to the rivals Lemond faced-Hinault, Fignon (both French heroes), Delgado, Roche, Chiappucci, Indurian. His 89 comeback on a weak team was against both Fignon and Delgado-both former winners and both a lot scarier than Ullrich.

Lots gets made of Lemond's bitterness, but he's justified to be angry about the changes EPO made in 91. I was there to watch the 91 tour and watching guys finish a mountain stage hardly looking tired made it pretty clear that something had changed. Armstrong was isolated once this year-Lemond covered all the attacks himself in 91 in the Pyrennes against Indurian, Bugno and the rest and just couldn't keep up against a stacked deck. He was justified to complain about the state of doping in cycling-it nearly brought the tour down in 98.

Again, this isn't meant to detract from what Armstrong accomplished-but for people who got into riding through Armstrong and didn't follow Lemond-the 85, 86, and 89 tours are worth having a look at-Lemond and Roche leading Hinault on a climb while Lemond and Kochli (Lemond's DS driving alongside him) argue for Lemond to slow down, Lemond and Hinault soloing up Alpe D'Huez after crushing the field on the previous climb, Lemond and Fignon's battling back and forth for the jersey in 89-a great career worth putting right alongside Armstrong's.

Neither.....Major Taylor was....

http://www.majortaylor.com/index.html

http://www.majortaylorassociation.org/who.htm

He dominated the sport when cycling was THE sport in the US

MAJOR TAYLOR biography at a glance
by Lynne Tolman

TELEGRAM & GAZETTE
Worcester, Mass.

Nov. 26, 1878 -- Marshall W. Taylor is born in rural Indiana to a black couple who moved north from Kentucky around the time of the Civil War.

1886-1891 -- Taylor is raised and educated in the home of a wealthy white Indianapolis family that employs his father as coachman. The family gives him a bicycle.

1892 -- Taylor is hired to perform cycling stunts outside an Indianapolis bike shop. His costume is a soldier's uniform, which earns him the nickname "Major." He wins his first bike race that year.

Fall 1895 -- Taylor moves to Worcester, Mass., with his employer and racing manager Louis "Birdie" Munger, who plans to open a bike factory there.

August 1896 -- Taylor unofficially breaks two world track records, for paced and unpaced 1-mile rides, in Indianapolis. But his feat offends white sensibilities and he is banned from Indy's Capital City track.

December 1896 -- Taylor finishes eighth in his first professional race, a six-day endurance event at Madison Square Garden in New York.

1898 -- Taylor holds seven world records, including the 1-mile paced standing start (1:41.4).

Aug. 10, 1899 -- Taylor wins the world 1-mile championship in Montreal, defeating Boston rival Tom Butler. Taylor is the second black world champion athlete, after bantamweight boxer George Dixon's title fights in 1890-91.

Nov. 15, 1899 -- Taylor knocks the 1-mile record down to 1:19.

September 1900 -- Thwarted in previous seasons by racism, Taylor finally gets to complete the national championship series and becomes American sprint champion.

October 1900-January 1901 -- Taylor performs in a vaudeville act with Charles "Mile-a-Minute" Murphy, racing on rollers on theater stages across Massachusetts.

March -June 1901 -- Taylor competes in Europe, which he had long resisted because his Baptist beliefs precluded racing on Sundays. He beats every European champion.

March 21, 1902 -- Taylor marries Daisy V. Morris in Ansonia, Conn.

1902-1904 -- Taylor races all over Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, with brief rests in Worcester.

1907 -- Taylor makes a brief comeback after a two-year hiatus.

1910 -- Taylor retires from racing at age 32. Over the next two decades, unsuccessful business ventures and illness sap his fortune.

1930 -- Impoverished and estranged from his wife, Taylor drives to Chicago, stays at the YMCA and tries to sell copies of his self-published 1928 autobiography, "The Fastest Bicycle Rider in the World."

June 21, 1932 -- Taylor dies at age 53 in the charity ward of Cook County Hospital, Chicago, and is buried in an unmarked grave.

May 23, 1948 -- A group of former pro bike racers, with money donated by Schwinn Bicycle Co. owner Frank Schwinn, has Taylor's remains exhumed and reburied in a more prominent part of Mount Glenwood Cemetery in Illinois.

I have to go with Armstong. Both Greg and Lance had compelling stories. Both are world champions and TDF winners. But 7 tours is something we may never see again.

Greg's wins were more interesting. I think he faced better competition. I would have loved the OLN coverage 20 years ago. You could make the argument that there would not have been a Lance Armstrong without LeMond. He proved an American can win in Europe and is more important than Lance in that respect. His wins were more dramatic too. 89 was incredible, so was 86. But I think what Lance did with 7 wins is something Greg Lemond could not have matched.

How does Lance having a stronger team make him a weaker rider? How does his competition being weaker make him a weaker rider?

..... in any of life's endeavors is a pointless debate. Eddy was the best of his generation, Greg and Lance the best cyclists in their generations. Admire their accomplishments, and leave it at that.

Lance has said many times that he wants to be remembered first as a cancer survivor. Let's hope that he continues to do good humanitarian things in his life and that he rises above Lemond's recent examples of un-necessary comments.

I'd like to see Lance and Greg combine efforts to support a "Tour of USA" stage race. Tour of Georgia, Tour of California -- yeah let's keep the ball rolling for cycling in this country.

you're right that it doesn't weaken Armstrong, but great rivalries go a long way toward defining legacies, as in Magic-Bird etc. I think Armstrong was aware of this in his podium speech when he remarked on Ullrich as a rival. The thing is, Ullrich only really challenged Lance once, in 2003, when Armstrong beat him by a minute and that was due more to Lance's relatively off year and not to Ullrich's strength. The two other times Ullrich came in second the margin was over 6 minutes. Look at who else came in second-Zulle, Beloki, Kloden, and Basso. Basso might be the future of the tour but he's not a feared rival the way staring down Hinault was. In Lemond's case, his victory came over a 5 time winner in Hinault and a two time winner in Fignon. Obviously Armstrong can't pick who he rides against, but it's too bad Armstrong never faced Indurian when both were at their peaks.

Ullrich was never a rider who was going to seriously attack Armstrong in the mountains the way Fignon and Hinault attacked Lemond. The closest we got with Armstrong was Pantini but his 98 victory deserves an asterisk beside it-and he was too inconsistent-attackign one day dropping out the next. If anything, I think we probably didn't see everything Armstrong was capable of in part because of the lack of a great challenger-it would have been great to have seen an Indurian-Armstrong battle of the sort we saw with Lemond and Hinault and Fignon.

Dang it! You beat me to it!

A case can be made for Major Taylor for sure. A name that is rarely mentioned, but should be by anyone who claims to know about cycling history.

I like PIE!!!!!

Isn't this about the same as the Shimano -vs.- Campy debate?

Neither.....Major Taylor was....

http://www.majortaylor.com/index.html

http://www.majortaylorassociation.org/who.htm

He dominated the sport when cycling was THE sport in the US

Wasn't MT mainly a track sprinter? Kind of hard to compare todays road racers with a 1800's sprinter, isn't it?

Hard to compare any era. But the question was cyclist. Major Taylor not only kicked butt in the US at a time when track cycling was packing places like Madison Square Garden, but he also kicked butt in Europe. He also broke the color barrier at a time when it was even harder than Jackie Robinson faced 50 years later. Consider he held 7 world records at the same time. He raced match races for $15,000 purses, and consider just how much money that was in 1900! I could go on.

There is no way to say who is best, or who would win heads up. But Major Taylor has to considered in any such discussion.

How about...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/7511/us_postal_discovery_bobkee.JPG

Armstrong's victory yesterday was one of the greatest accomplishments in sports and has inspired a lot of greatest-ever stories. As someone said in another post, great sporting accomplishments can't ultimately be ranked, but it still leaves me wondering whether what Lemond accomplished isn't getting enough consideration.

As someone who got into racing through watching John Tesh musical versions of the tour (for all those complaining about OLN look for CBS broadcasts of the tour circa 1985), I think Lemond is still the greatest American cyclist ever-it's more than just 3 tours against 7.

Armstrong talks about the importance of a strong team, but the only time Lemond had a strong team they worked against him-in 85 his coach lied to him, telling him Hinault was close behind and made him wait, essentially making him hand over the tour to Hinault. In 86, Hinault attacked him and Lemond had to win against him and against a hostile French crowd. If anyone has video from that time, check out how much stress Lemond was under leading into the final time trial--totally isolated. Beating a French icon in France on your same team to become the first non-European to win the tour is an amazing accomplishment. They both suffered horrible off the bike setbacks, and it's impossible to compare Lemond's shooting accident to Armstrong's cancer, except that Armstrong came back stronger whereas Lemond never seemed to recover the form of 86.. but the biggest difference was that Armstrong got into a supportive team that rode strongly for him. Lemond had no team support for his comeback-he was on a minor ADR team and had to cover every attack from Fignon himself. His victory by 8 seconds still ranks, I think, as the greatest comeback in the tour and he had to do this by beating yet another French hero who worked the press and crowd against Lemond throughout the tour.

Armstrong made a big deal of what a great rival Ullrich was in his podium speech. But does Ullrich really compare to the rivals Lemond faced-Hinault, Fignon (both French heroes), Delgado, Roche, Chiappucci, Indurian. His 89 comeback on a weak team was against both Fignon and Delgado-both former winners and both a lot scarier than Ullrich.

Lots gets made of Lemond's bitterness, but he's justified to be angry about the changes EPO made in 91. I was there to watch the 91 tour and watching guys finish a mountain stage hardly looking tired made it pretty clear that something had changed. Armstrong was isolated once this year-Lemond covered all the attacks himself in 91 in the Pyrennes against Indurian, Bugno and the rest and just couldn't keep up against a stacked deck. He was justified to complain about the state of doping in cycling-it nearly brought the tour down in 98.

Again, this isn't meant to detract from what Armstrong accomplished-but for people who got into riding through Armstrong and didn't follow Lemond-the 85, 86, and 89 tours are worth having a look at-Lemond and Roche leading Hinault on a climb while Lemond and Kochli (Lemond's DS driving alongside him) argue for Lemond to slow down, Lemond and Hinault soloing up Alpe D'Huez after crushing the field on the previous climb, Lemond and Fignon's battling back and forth for the jersey in 89-a great career worth putting right alongside Armstrong's.Straight up, each at his best, balls-to-the-wall, one Tour, winner-take-all, Greg would have beat Lance. I doubt that's in question. Lance had the greater Tour career, by far. 7 vs. 3. No argument.

It's a wash, but I can see why Greg is irked. Give him the support Lance got (from team to technology to coaching and high-paid PR genius) and Gawd knows what he could have done.

Straight up, each at his best, balls-to-the-wall, one Tour, winner-take-all, Greg would have beat Lance. I doubt that's in question. Lance had the greater Tour career, by far. 7 vs. 3. No argument.

It's a wash, but I can see why Greg is irked. Give him the support Lance got (from team to technology to coaching and high-paid PR genius) and Gawd knows what he could have done.

lemond is before my time, but it seems that lemond should have been able to procure that kind of support himself if he was so intimately knowledgeable about the sport. there seems to be more to this sport than just riding a bike.

lemond is before my time, but it seems that lemond should have been able to procure that kind of support himself if he was so intimately knowledgeable about the sport. there seems to be more to this sport than just riding a bike.

When Lemond starting his pro career, cycling was a different game-racers weren't high paid, sponsor endorsed superstars. They were workhorses under strict control by dictator like DSs. So, Lemond wasn't in a position to simply dictate how a team would run. In fact, Lemond did a lot to modernize the sport and was among the first to get a high wage-opening the way for today's salaries. Lance was a partial owner of his team (and though he had a large salary was peanuts compared to the Nike and other endorsements) and could simply choose which events he rode-Lemond on the other hand was expected to race whatever his DS told him to-check out his Palmares from 1986: all the spring classics, GIro, Tour of Switzerland, Coors Classic, and the Tour:

1986
Winner of the Tour of France
- 1st of the 13th stage
1st in Lisieux
1st in Stiphout
2nd of Milan-San Remo
2nd of Coors Classic
- 1st of the 5th stage
3rd of the Tour of Switzerland
- 1st of the points score
3rd of Paris-Nice
3rd of International Critérium
4th of Giro d' Italia
- 1st of the 5th stage
4th of the Championship of Zurich
5th of the Flèche Wallonne
6th of the Tour of Valence
- 1st of the 4th stage
7th of the World Championship
11th of the Tour of Flandres
14th of Liege-Bastogne-Liege
19th of Ghent-Wevelgem

Wasn't MT mainly a track sprinter? Kind of hard to compare todays road racers with a 1800's sprinter, isn't it?

The question was american cyclist. You're correct in that Taylor raced in 1900 but he was without a doubt the best of his time and overcame obstacles just like Lance and Greg.

Davis Phinney has the most wins by an American cyclist. He was the first American to win a road stage on the tour. He certainly should be in the running. Sprinters don't win the GCs, but they do get wins.

Lemond
1986
Winner of the Tour of France
- 1st of the 13th stage
1st in Lisieux
1st in Stiphout
2nd of Milan-San Remo
2nd of Coors Classic
- 1st of the 5th stage
3rd of the Tour of Switzerland
- 1st of the points score
3rd of Paris-Nice
3rd of International Critérium
4th of Giro d' Italia
- 1st of the 5th stage
4th of the Championship of Zurich
5th of the Flèche Wallonne
6th of the Tour of Valence
- 1st of the 4th stage
7th of the World Championship
11th of the Tour of Flandres
14th of Liege-Bastogne-Liege
19th of Ghent-Wevelgem

That's as much racing than Lance has done the past three years. I'm guessing about 70 days of racing in one year.

Davis Phinney has the most wins by an American cyclist. He was the first American to win a road stage on the tour. He certainly should be in the running. Sprinters don't win the GCs, but they do get wins.

It is a shame he has Parkinsons.

Straight up, each at his best, balls-to-the-wall, one Tour, winner-take-all, Greg would have beat Lance. I doubt that's in question.

You have got to be kidding. I loved watching Lemond - that was when I started getting really interested in cycling - but the competition today is at a higher level than it was then, and for the last 7 years, Armstrong has faced all comers and sent them all home with their tails between their legs. Sure, he has a great team around him (which he built), but when it's really clutch time and it gets down to one-on-one, whether a TT or a tough mountain stage, Armstrong has done what it took to win. He may not do it with as much flair as some of the other guys, but he's the definition of Mr. Clutch. If I had to put the deed to my house on the line betting on one guy to win, it'd be Armstrong. I wish I had his willpower.

The question was american cyclist. You're correct in that Taylor raced in 1900 but he was without a doubt the best of his time and overcame obstacles just like Lance and Greg.

Well, if we are expanding the cycling base beyond road racing, then how about John Howard?

14-time USCF and NORBA elite/master's national champion.
3-time Olympian
US National Team, 12 times
World Record holder in several events.
RAAM winner
etc...

Heck, he even went 152 MPH on a bike, the man is an animal! :)

Straight up, each at his best, balls-to-the-wall, one Tour, winner-take-all, Greg would have beat Lance. I doubt that's in question. Lance had the greater Tour career, by far. 7 vs. 3. No argument.

It's a wash, but I can see why Greg is irked. Give him the support Lance got (from team to technology to coaching and high-paid PR genius) and Gawd knows what he could have done.

Now THAT would be awesome. Greg vs. Lance, both at their peaks. I sort of agree that Greg might just be able to take him. It would have been fun to watch these two super-freaks slug it out!

The question was american cyclist. You're correct in that Taylor raced in 1900 but he was without a doubt the best of his time and overcame obstacles just like Lance and Greg.

I was still living in Indiana back in the mid-80s when Indy hosted the Pan Am Games, and the city built the Major Taylor Velodrome there (and reportedly did a great job on it). Indy has changed a lot in the last 20 years, but back in 86 or so, you just didn't see any guys in Lycra whizzing around back there, and if you did, they better get out the way of the pickup trucks. Bikes were just a way for kids to get around until they could get a drivers' license. It was pretty funny watching the news media explain the Velodrome over and over again.

"It's a circular wooden track for racing bicycles. The track bikes race in a circle and don't have brakes. And it's named after this guy you've never heard of, but he was incredible. Black guy from the 1800s, used to race bicycles, broke the color barrier, set all kinds of records."

"So it's like the Speedway, cept it's made outta wood and it's for bicycles? And the bikes ain't got no brakes? And the greatest American cyclist ever was a black guy from the 1800s and he was from Indiana? You gotta be kidding me."

I was still a few years away from getting into cycling the first time.Sounded just as funny to me as it did to 98% of the rest of the population. We could at least figure that there might be some use for the new Natatorium they also built, but kept wondering what the city was gonna do with a wooden bicycle racing track after the Games were over.

Straight up, each at his best, balls-to-the-wall, one Tour, winner-take-all, Greg would have beat Lance. I doubt that's in question. Lance had the greater Tour career, by far. 7 vs. 3. No argument.

It's a wash, but I can see why Greg is irked. Give him the support Lance got (from team to technology to coaching and high-paid PR genius) and Gawd knows what he could have done.
I think, eggs to eggs, the Major would beat them both.
But here I was hoping Rahsaan Bahati could have lived up to his potential.

You know Rashaan? I don't know him but I go to school with him, you from around Indiana? He was on a group ride one day with us, fast dude. He was supposed to be a big Little 5 rider but it never worked out because Recruitment/To High a Cat/Politics in Little 5. If you want to see a real test they should all race Little 5 :). Same bikes, same distance, it is all the same since the start of the race.

K

The Velodrome is still there. I go to Indy every month. The local MUT system has a trail theat leads you directly to the Velodrome...Great piece of history

Armstrong's victory yesterday was one of the greatest accomplishments in sports and has inspired a lot of greatest-ever stories. As someone said in another post, great sporting accomplishments can't ultimately be ranked, but it still leaves me wondering whether what Lemond accomplished isn't getting enough consideration.

As someone who got into racing through watching John Tesh musical versions of the tour (for all those complaining about OLN look for CBS broadcasts of the tour circa 1985), I think Lemond is still the greatest American cyclist ever-it's more than just 3 tours against 7.

Armstrong talks about the importance of a strong team, but the only time Lemond had a strong team they worked against him-in 85 his coach lied to him, telling him Hinault was close behind and made him wait, essentially making him hand over the tour to Hinault. In 86, Hinault attacked him and Lemond had to win against him and against a hostile French crowd. If anyone has video from that time, check out how much stress Lemond was under leading into the final time trial--totally isolated. Beating a French icon in France on your same team to become the first non-European to win the tour is an amazing accomplishment. They both suffered horrible off the bike setbacks, and it's impossible to compare Lemond's shooting accident to Armstrong's cancer, except that Armstrong came back stronger whereas Lemond never seemed to recover the form of 86.. but the biggest difference was that Armstrong got into a supportive team that rode strongly for him. Lemond had no team support for his comeback-he was on a minor ADR team and had to cover every attack from Fignon himself. His victory by 8 seconds still ranks, I think, as the greatest comeback in the tour and he had to do this by beating yet another French hero who worked the press and crowd against Lemond throughout the tour.

Armstrong made a big deal of what a great rival Ullrich was in his podium speech. But does Ullrich really compare to the rivals Lemond faced-Hinault, Fignon (both French heroes), Delgado, Roche, Chiappucci, Indurian. His 89 comeback on a weak team was against both Fignon and Delgado-both former winners and both a lot scarier than Ullrich.

Lots gets made of Lemond's bitterness, but he's justified to be angry about the changes EPO made in 91. I was there to watch the 91 tour and watching guys finish a mountain stage hardly looking tired made it pretty clear that something had changed. Armstrong was isolated once this year-Lemond covered all the attacks himself in 91 in the Pyrennes against Indurian, Bugno and the rest and just couldn't keep up against a stacked deck. He was justified to complain about the state of doping in cycling-it nearly brought the tour down in 98.

Again, this isn't meant to detract from what Armstrong accomplished-but for people who got into riding through Armstrong and didn't follow Lemond-the 85, 86, and 89 tours are worth having a look at-Lemond and Roche leading Hinault on a climb while Lemond and Kochli (Lemond's DS driving alongside him) argue for Lemond to slow down, Lemond and Hinault soloing up Alpe D'Huez after crushing the field on the previous climb, Lemond and Fignon's battling back and forth for the jersey in 89-a great career worth putting right alongside Armstrong's.

Your story is very good, enjoyable. BUT nobody survives Cancer and climbs back to
victory like Lance-baby. Why don't you compare Lemond's battles with a battle of
life and death. I think both guys are icons, makes me glad to be even remotely
biologically related to them as a male rider. But both stories deserve their own
recognition and praise.

Your story is very good, enjoyable. BUT nobody survives Cancer and climbs back to
victory like Lance-baby. Why don't you compare Lemond's battles with a battle of
life and death. I think both guys are icons, makes me glad to be even remotely
biologically related to them as a male rider. But both stories deserve their own
recognition and praise.

Hmmmm.... Would you rather take a 12-gauge shotgun blast to the chest or have cancer?

Either way, I think I'll pass.

--Shannon

Too bad you totally missed my point. Why don't you start your own thread
on medical conditions you would rather pass on, Hmmmmmm
:rolleyes:

I'm a cancer survivor and I missed your point too...... It could be easily argued that they both came back from near death experiences......Personally, I'm not fond of LeMond but that guy went throught hell recoving from his gun shot wounds....

Hmmmm.... Would you rather take a 12-gauge shotgun blast to the chest or have cancer?

Either way, I think I'll pass.

--Shannon
Too bad you totally missed my point. Why don't you start your own thread
on medical conditions you would rather pass on, Hmmmmmm
:rolleyes:

I'm a cancer survivor and I missed your point too...... It could be easily argued that they both came back from near death experiences......Personally, I'm not fond of LeMond but that guy went throught hell recoving from his gun shot wounds....

I am glad you did or anyone for that matter because I personally lost people to it.
I think I made my point which is the last line of my first reply. Both guys deserve
recognition. Personally, I think todays riders have an easier time because their
machines are better, but then again the whole field of riders are on common
ground, so everybodys times are faster than 20 years ago. If we start comparing
riders lets all put them on exactly the same bike too. Can't people just enjoy history
without comparing apples to oranges.

I am glad you did or anyone for that matter because I personally lost people to it.
I think I made my point which is the last line of my first reply. Both guys deserve
recognition. Personally, I think todays riders have an easier time because their
machines are better, but then again the whole field of riders are on common
ground, so everybodys times are faster than 20 years ago. If we start comparing
riders lets all put them on exactly the same bike too. Can't people just enjoy history
without comparing apples to oranges.
You said:
"Why don't you compare Lemond's battles with a battle of life and death."

Did (do) you know that he (Lemond) had been shot by a 12-guage shotgun. That was the reference made by the poster tube_ee.

You said:
"Why don't you compare Lemond's battles with a battle of life and death."

Did (do) you know that he (Lemond) had been shot by a 12-guage shotgun. That was the reference made by the poster tube_ee.


"Thirty shotgun pellets remain in LeMond, including the two in the lining of his heart, but, miraculously, none of the damage was irreparable. Eight weeks later he started the long road back."

I am well aware of Lemond's tragedy. Doesn't anyone think Cancer is worst, I have seen
it eat people down pretty bad. Patching someone up and waiting for them to heal is a
little different than experimenting with drugs when there is no sure fix cure. The shotgun
blast can be explained as stupidity. Have you ever seen someone get injected with a
giant sringe of nasty experimental chemo ****?

"Thirty shotgun pellets remain in LeMond, including the two in the lining of his heart, but, miraculously, none of the damage was irreparable. Eight weeks later he started the long road back."

I am well aware of Lemond's tragedy. Doesn't anyone think Cancer is worst, I have seen
it eat people down pretty bad. Patching someone up and waiting for them to heal is a
little different than experimenting with drugs when there is no sure fix cure. The shotgun
blast can be explained as stupidity. Have you ever seen someone get injected with a
giant sringe of nasty experimental chemo ****?
I have no desire to engage in a discourse on "which is worse". My point was that you said;
"battle of life and death", I think a shotgun blast to the chest qualifies. That's all.

I have no desire to engage in a discourse on "which is worse". My point was that you said;
"battle of life and death", I think a shotgun blast to the chest qualifies. That's all.

Thats fine, but get your facts straight then. Lemond was in a kneeling position when he
got hit in his BACK and SIDE, not in his chest.

Thats fine, but get your facts straight then. Lemond was in a kneeling position when he
got hit in his BACK and SIDE, not in his chest.
you're right, how dangerous could that possibly be. Probably not life threatening at all then.

In the words of the Black Knight..."Just a flesh wound"

Some people will say Lance because he's the only one they know, some people will say Lemond because they hate Lance, and some people will say neither because they like to stick out. :D

you're right, how dangerous could that possibly be. Probably not life threatening at all then.

In the words of the Black Knight..."Just a flesh wound"

Don't you think that removing the pellets out of someone and stopping blood loss is a
lot more treatable than trying to stop someone's brain from being eaten away.
All we know is what the press reports say. My opinion is if you are wearing a Bright
orange shooting jacket (was he?) and not goofing around with your friends
holding firearms (was he?) then you don't get shot. Lemond is lucky he lived but in my opinion, he went looking to put those pellets in some animal and found out what it's like.
What did poor Lance do? Get a doctors's checkup between training?
People will sympathize with Lance alot more.

Who knows, but thankfully they both came along and revolutionized the sport in their respective eras.

I have a world of respect for both of them.

Greg was an innovator, Lance was a master tactician, Major Taylor was a groundbreaker 60 years before the civil rights movement.

All things being equal, who would win a tour between Lance and Greg? Who the **** knows? I'm saying a dead heat. But given modern technology and techniques, Major Taylor would crush either of them on the prologue.

Greg beat a shotgun, Lance beat cancer, but spitting/cursing Frogs were peanuts compared to the beatings and regular death threats Major Taylor endured because his skin was dark.

You know Rashaan? I don't know him but I go to school with him, you from around Indiana? He was on a group ride one day with us, fast dude. He was supposed to be a big Little 5 rider but it never worked out because Recruitment/To High a Cat/Politics in Little 5. If you want to see a real test they should all race Little 5 :). Same bikes, same distance, it is all the same since the start of the race.

K
No,I don't know him, just of him.
He's from LA, where I am.
So he's still in Indiana? At IU, right?
I just had read some articles/interviews on him, over the years, and I always liked his style.
There was talk here in the shops that he could be a really great rider in the future.
But lately I haven't heard much about him.
What does he do now?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2000/aug00/UScrit/chamion.jpg

why don't we speak about how 'dumb' Lance was for not seeking treatment until his nut was the size of a lemon. most testicular cancer if caught early enough is a lop of a ball and a round of chemo. it was LA's not seeking early treatment and diagnosis that put him in such a dire situation. look I like both guys but both battled back from nearly being dead.
simple, done. who cares at whic manner, whcih was worse I choose neither. methinks you have a grudge against Lemond because you are either anti hunting or vegan.

in all truth I'm going with the Major. kicked arse and still won overall titles even though he couldn't compete in some areas (the South) for either no race mixing or fear for his life. so he raced about 2/3rds a season and still won points titles.

all of them rule and I wish the friggin car had never been invented and MT would get the recognition he deserved, veloracing would be more popular than baseball and we wouldn't have global terrorism as we wouldn't be funding it to feed our hummers.

Greg was an innovator, Lance was a master tactician, Major Taylor was a groundbreaker 60 years before the civil rights movement.

All things being equal, who would win a tour between Lance and Greg? Who the **** knows? I'm saying a dead heat. But given modern technology and techniques, Major Taylor would crush either of them on the prologue.

Greg beat a shotgun, Lance beat cancer, but spitting/cursing Frogs were peanuts compared to the beatings and regular death threats Major Taylor endured because his skin was dark.

Excellent reply............You summed up this whole debate in a couple of sentences...Bravo

But given modern technology and techniques, Major Taylor would crush either of them on the prologue.

and John Howard would leave all 3 days behind in RAAM. :)

and John Howard would leave all 3 days behind in RAAM. :)

Actually, in FRed Across AMerica Howard got unexpectedly schooled by a hamburger fueled Lon Haldeman. He did win Ironman Hawaii, which is a lot more impressive.

why don't we speak about how 'dumb' Lance was for not seeking treatment until his nut was the size of a lemon. most testicular cancer if caught early enough is a lop of a ball and a round of chemo. it was LA's not seeking early treatment and diagnosis that put him in such a dire situation. look I like both guys but both battled back from nearly being dead.
simple, done. who cares at whic manner, whcih was worse I choose neither. methinks you have a grudge against Lemond because you are either anti hunting or vegan.


it may just be brainwashing of my profession, but playing with a gun in any form (and yes it is playing unless you are a cop/soldier/davy crockett) is as stupid as not getting a swollen testicle checked out. lemond was a flat out idiot for doing anything with a firearm during his career. now that i think about it i'm giving lance the win because at least he didn't bring the cancer on himself by hunting for it.

Excellent reply............You summed up this whole debate in a couple of sentences...Bravo

With all due respect, I summed it all up in two sentences without insulting the French or evoking Major Taylor's name for style points. But I guess that just isn't cool in this ever-more-disappointing Roadbikereview in-club.

This board once inspired me to start riding again, but now I just long for the good old days when the most egregious offenses were "Shimano vs. Campy" or the Podiumbound/RadicalRon/Spankdoggie "jackass" posts. Or Grzymnky's insightful insults.

Interesting! I again don't know much about him aside from the fact that I believe he was brought into IU along with a few other excellent black cyclists to ride for Team Major Taylor in Little 5. Controversy follows and has been rampant since then as no one above Cat 3 can ride Little 5, also there was suspicion of recrutting, also illegal in the race. Last I knew he rode for Team Saturn but I don't know about that anymore. I am suprised we don't hear more about him on campus. There are quite a few riders at IU of the US pro level echelon. The question is just where do they go after IU? I also don't think he rides on our Collegiate team, which sucks because it would be great. I am sure it has to do with some issue though.

K







No,I don't know him, just of him.
He's from LA, where I am.
So he's still in Indiana? At IU, right?
I just had read some articles/interviews on him, over the years, and I always liked his style.
There was talk here in the shops that he could be a really great rider in the future.
But lately I haven't heard much about him.
What does he do now?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2000/aug00/UScrit/chamion.jpg

I had never heard of Major Taylor until a recent trip I took: He was featured in an article in an in-flight magazine... his story made me weep aloud

The shotgun
blast can be explained as stupidity.

i have a hard time feeling bad for someone who got hurt during a hunting accident.

i have a hard time feeling bad for someone who got hurt during a hunting accident.
Of course you realize that there are those who would say the same thing about someone who got hurt riding a bicycle on the road due to a car accident or other incident.

Of course you realize that there are those who would say the same thing about someone who got hurt riding a bicycle on the road due to a car accident or other incident.

yeah maybe...

i just have no respect for someone who hunts for "sport", so having the tables turn, and the hunter getting shot is ironic. of course, i wish no harm upon any living person or animal... and certainly wouldnt have wished that i hunter get shot. just ironic.

as someone who was raised around firearms in a home of hunters when used properly these tragedies are easily avoidable. If you are thinking that the risk of a hunting accident should cause you to avoid the activity (based on stats) you have to remember these are bike racers. training on public roads 6 days a week carries a far higher risk of career or life ending accidents. I understand riders not kite surfing etc.. that have high probabilitites of knee injuries but the probability caluclus for a hunting accident is quite low. now if you are idiots when you hunt and don't follow standard procedures the probability goes up considerably and then yes, it's stupid. Considering it wasn't Lemonds first hunting accident (he was hit by a pellet from Hinaults Gun in 84 or 85) you are correct, maybe he should have avoided such risks. it doesn't sound like they were very good hunters

To Utah Craghopper:

FRed Across AMerica is hilarious! And, yes, you and Wipeout are right that Haldeman and Howard would beat Lance/Greg/Taylor in one of these events.

To Sao:

Sorry, good try, but I'm not looking for style points with the Taylor hype. I've known about him for years, live five miles from the Major Taylor velodrome, and read a great biography on him in about 1990. And, I hate to play this card and don't want to assume that you're white, but as a black cyclist, Major Taylor probably means more to me than he does to you.

To Sao:

Sorry, good try, but I'm not looking for style points with the Taylor hype. I've known about him for years, live five miles from the Major Taylor velodrome, and read a great biography on him in about 1990. And, I hate to play this card and don't want to assume that you're white, but as a black cyclist, Major Taylor probably means more to me than he does to you.

Here's a question that I've never figured out:

Why is it that the only two black cyclists I've ever heard of (Major Taylor and Nelson Vails) were both track riders?

For that matter, why is it that there have been no black roadmen of note? Is it the appeal (and relentless promotion) of other sports? Golf and tennis seem to be opening up a bit, but there are a lot of sports that remain "lily white." Cycling seems to be one, at least at the top levels.

I sure had a pretty diverse bunch of customers when I worked at a bike shop.

Yeah, I'm a honkey, but I'm curious as to your take on this...

--Shannon

Here's a question that I've never figured out:

Why is it that the only two black cyclists I've ever heard of (Major Taylor and Nelson Vails) were both track riders?

For that matter, why is it that there have been no black roadmen of note? Is it the appeal (and relentless promotion) of other sports? Golf and tennis seem to be opening up a bit, but there are a lot of sports that remain "lily white." Cycling seems to be one, at least at the top levels.

I sure had a pretty diverse bunch of customers when I worked at a bike shop.

Yeah, I'm a honkey, but I'm curious as to your take on this...

--Shannon

Well, there are a lot of reasons, and it opens a HUGE topic that ranges from things like peer pressure and economic opportunity to simple racism. The relentless promotion of basketball and football that you mention is definately a factor.

But, what I will say is that there simply are few role models for black kids in the world of professional cycling. The only coverage you see of any dark skinned folks at the TdF is the guy, I believe from Burkina Faso, who rides the motorcycle and writes the time splits on the chalk boards. Not exactly a huge role model.

Perhaps some of the track riders like Vails have had more encouragement than roadies due to the myth in this country that dark-skinned folks are good sprinters and not so good at endurance. Seems to me that people like the Moroccan and Kenyan marathoners might be pretty good at things like the TdF. And, did you ever notice how some of the best male and female leapers (world high jump champs) are from Scandanavia and Eastern Europe, which blows the whole "White guys can't jump" myth away.

Racers like Rahsaan Bahati are a nice start. Bahati's a nice guy (yes, I've met him), and I can tell you that there are a bunch of young non-white bike riders in L.A. (where he lives) and at IU Bloomington (where he attended) who really look up to him and see him as a role model.

Me, in 20 years of riding (one season racing, the rest for fitness), only twice have I heard any off-color remarks about my sport of choice, usually it's just a friendly "Hi, how was/is your ride?"

Now back to the topic, Lance/Greg/Major/and the Fred Across America racers all rule, who cares what color they are?

is breaking the barriers as well. one hell of a great guy, great wrench and fab bike handler. the only thing keeping him from killing it is he's young and more concerned with having a good time which is common to guys his age and cuts into his training.