Agreed: LeMond was the greatest

On Feb 25, 8:17*pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:
"--D-y" *wrote in message

...

I'll try again.
When did "now" start? I mean, what happened-- IF ANYTHING-- to start a
"new 'now'", or whatever it is that the OP might possibly be
referencing?
Since there was no answer from the OP, I can only guess that there
wasn't some event, happening, court finding, etc. etc. that might have

somehow changed Greg Lemond's "ugliest loser" status.

IOW, for example: despite the howling from some quarters, the expected
(in some quarters) legal prosecution of Lance Armstrong et al. was
dropped. That's the latest news I remember seeing. I could have easily
missed some sort of news or "intelligence" regarding, for example, the
drive (from some quarters) to take one or more of Lance Armstrong's
Tour de France victories away from him. That's the only way Greg
Lemond is going to somehow climb back up to the top of the "America's
Greatest Tour Rider" ladder. Not forgetting for a New York second that
Greg Lemond fit the "doper profile", himself.
Did that help with your "duh" problem?
--D-y

The post above attempting to make the concept of 'now' something requiring
an explanation speaks for itself and I have nothing to add.

You didn't have anything to add except "duh"-- remember?

Kind of like pretending something had happened to re-elevate a former
"hero" to his former (old, old history) "greatest whatever" status.
Before he became the Greatest Ever Alcoholic Whiner Hypocrite and
dupe of the "drug crusaders" in the Press. Which IMHO was real "duh".
"Hey, let's get that rummy up there in front of the cameras and get
him going! This should be good!".
--D-y

Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
championhip, but that is technically not a classic.

On Feb 24, 11:22*am, cicero venatio wrote:
Can we all agree now that Greg LeMond was America's greatest Tour
rider?

On Feb 26, 8:52*pm, Randall wrote:
Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
championhip, but that is technically not a classic.


And Lemond did have 2 WRC's, but LA had 1.
DR

On Feb 26, 8:37*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:52*pm, Randall wrote:

Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
championhip, but that is technically not a classic.


Yes that's true, you cannot compare World Championship to the major
classics. The world championships does not relationship to to who is
doing well that season. Sean Kelly dominated the classics and never
won the world road championships.
And Lemond did have 2 WRC's, *but LA had 1.
DR

On Feb 26, 9:52*pm, Randall wrote:
Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
championhip, but that is technically not a classic.

No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
close as he got.
Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.

Point being, Greg could have kept his status as revered pioneer, and
far ahead of George Mount or Boyer. And "beating Hinault at his own
game", maybe.

Too bad. (He fit the doper profile. Which might have been forgotten in
the light of his true accomplishments on the bike.)
Sauce for the goose...
--D-y

On Feb 27, 8:11*am, --D-y wrote:

No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
close as he got.
Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.


There are eight "orthodox" classics: the five monuments, the Flèche
Wallone,
Paris-Bruxelles, and Paris-Tours.

Clasica San Sebastian only counts in the most unorthodox of
definitions. Any looser and we'd have to include the Thrift Drug
Classic and the Nevada City Classic, wins at both ends of LANCE!s
career. So as of *now*, LANCE! is America's Greatest Classics Rider -
loosely defined or not.

On Feb 27, 4:42*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:11*am, --D-y wrote:



No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
close as he got.
Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.

There are eight "orthodox" classics: the five monuments, the Flèche
Wallone,
Paris-Bruxelles, and Paris-Tours.

Clasica San Sebastian only counts in the most unorthodox of
definitions. *Any looser and we'd have to include the Thrift Drug
Classic and the Nevada City Classic, wins at both ends of LANCE!s
career. *So as of *now*, LANCE! is America's Greatest Classics Rider -
loosely defined or not.

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y

On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y wrote:

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -


He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y wrote:



Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.
--D-y

On Feb 27, 8:34*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y wrote:

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

DUH!

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

**rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.