A substitute blog for another boring stage
Stage 11 was boring too. Cavendish won again. THOR! was 5th, so he relinquishes the green jersey back to Cavendish.
Fortunately the good people at VeloNews put the transcript of an interview with Bernard Hinault on their website to help us overcome the lack of excitement. Here are some highlights. In a few cases I have taken the liberty of translating from Frenglish so that you can better understand what Hinault means. Segments from the VeloNews interview are in italics.
VN: We’re seeing some polemic between Armstrong and Contador, was that similar to you and LeMond in the 1980s?
BH: No, no. There was no polemic between Greg and me. In 1985, I was designated to win the Tour and in 1986, it was his turn. And it happened just like that. What we’re seeing now is that two want to win. It is quite the opposite.
The record shows that for stage 12, on July 15 1986, Hinault attacked in the Pyrenees and put over four minutes on LeMond. The very next day, in order to correct this mistake of overtaking his teammate who was designated to win the Tour, Hinault attacked again to put a couple more minutes on LeMond, who later bridged the gap and passed Hinault, though not by enough of a margin to take the overall lead from Hinault. In the Alps, LeMond finally got into yellow. But even then, Hinault attacked again, forcing LeMond to chase him down on the Alpe d'Huez.
That's what the record shows. Decide for yourself if Hinault is full of crap. Or maybe I'm silly and attacking your yellow-jersey-wearing teammate really is consistent with the idea of designating him to win.
VN: What do you make of the Armstrong return?
BH: Pfft … I couldn’t care less in the end. It’s not my problem.
Translation: Damn. This guy cast a shadow so long it shades my ego. That is a problem for me, so I'm going to pretend it's a problem for someone other than me.
VN: Don’t you think it’s impressive that he’s been able to return to the top level after being away from the sport for three years?
BH: But what is his motive for coming back? Is it to win? To fight cancer, or something else in the future? To one day be the governor of Texas? I think at this moment, the Tour serves him more than what he serves the Tour.
OK, here Hinault is losing it. You can tell when he mentions politics. To the French, the best thing to support a political career is to have an affair. Launching a political career by cycling is just silly in any country. And Armstrong is already a soap opera of romantic affairs. To win? Imagine that. Next thing you know, Armstrong will be trying.
VN: Do you think his return is good for cycling?
BH: I am not convinced that it will be good for cycling. One speaks a lot more about him and the Astana team and the politics between the two of them than about any other riders. It’s necessary to remember that there are other riders who exist. The media should look at everything.
Well, maybe the TV audience, crowds, and sales of goodies can indicate if Lance Armstrong is good for cycling or not. But let's translate from Frenglish again, particularly that bit about remembering other riders: Don't talk to me about Lance Armstrong. All he ever won is the yellow jersey. I won 5 of them myself, you know. I could have had 6, but I was a better teammate than Lance and I helped my younger teammates. He should take a lesson from that. I didn't need to win more Tours. I'm Bernard Freaking Hinault. I won all three Grand Tours, just like Contador. Only I won each one at least twice. Who else has ever done that? Nobody! Not even Teddy Merckx. That's right, I'm the man. These lazy, pampered phony champions of today should stop resting on their laurels and piles and piles of cash so they can appreciate what I did. Yeah, ME.
Fortunately the good people at VeloNews put the transcript of an interview with Bernard Hinault on their website to help us overcome the lack of excitement. Here are some highlights. In a few cases I have taken the liberty of translating from Frenglish so that you can better understand what Hinault means. Segments from the VeloNews interview are in italics.
VN: We’re seeing some polemic between Armstrong and Contador, was that similar to you and LeMond in the 1980s?
BH: No, no. There was no polemic between Greg and me. In 1985, I was designated to win the Tour and in 1986, it was his turn. And it happened just like that. What we’re seeing now is that two want to win. It is quite the opposite.
The record shows that for stage 12, on July 15 1986, Hinault attacked in the Pyrenees and put over four minutes on LeMond. The very next day, in order to correct this mistake of overtaking his teammate who was designated to win the Tour, Hinault attacked again to put a couple more minutes on LeMond, who later bridged the gap and passed Hinault, though not by enough of a margin to take the overall lead from Hinault. In the Alps, LeMond finally got into yellow. But even then, Hinault attacked again, forcing LeMond to chase him down on the Alpe d'Huez.
That's what the record shows. Decide for yourself if Hinault is full of crap. Or maybe I'm silly and attacking your yellow-jersey-wearing teammate really is consistent with the idea of designating him to win.
VN: What do you make of the Armstrong return?
BH: Pfft … I couldn’t care less in the end. It’s not my problem.
Translation: Damn. This guy cast a shadow so long it shades my ego. That is a problem for me, so I'm going to pretend it's a problem for someone other than me.
VN: Don’t you think it’s impressive that he’s been able to return to the top level after being away from the sport for three years?
BH: But what is his motive for coming back? Is it to win? To fight cancer, or something else in the future? To one day be the governor of Texas? I think at this moment, the Tour serves him more than what he serves the Tour.
OK, here Hinault is losing it. You can tell when he mentions politics. To the French, the best thing to support a political career is to have an affair. Launching a political career by cycling is just silly in any country. And Armstrong is already a soap opera of romantic affairs. To win? Imagine that. Next thing you know, Armstrong will be trying.
VN: Do you think his return is good for cycling?
BH: I am not convinced that it will be good for cycling. One speaks a lot more about him and the Astana team and the politics between the two of them than about any other riders. It’s necessary to remember that there are other riders who exist. The media should look at everything.
Well, maybe the TV audience, crowds, and sales of goodies can indicate if Lance Armstrong is good for cycling or not. But let's translate from Frenglish again, particularly that bit about remembering other riders: Don't talk to me about Lance Armstrong. All he ever won is the yellow jersey. I won 5 of them myself, you know. I could have had 6, but I was a better teammate than Lance and I helped my younger teammates. He should take a lesson from that. I didn't need to win more Tours. I'm Bernard Freaking Hinault. I won all three Grand Tours, just like Contador. Only I won each one at least twice. Who else has ever done that? Nobody! Not even Teddy Merckx. That's right, I'm the man. These lazy, pampered phony champions of today should stop resting on their laurels and piles and piles of cash so they can appreciate what I did. Yeah, ME.
posted by uberschuck at 11:19 PM
1 Comments:
Yeah, spot on commentary on Hinault. The guy is so envious of Armstrong it makes him sick. And that was before Lance made his comeback--which is making him look even worse. The way Lance is riding right now, it appears clear that had he not retired, he'd be riding for his 10th or 11th Tour victory.
Post a Comment
<< Home