Marco Pantani: The Accidental Death of a Cyclist: Film Review

Marco Pantani was one of the greatest pure climbers cycling has ever known, and one of the most emotionally fragile.  Marco Pantani could sprint up mountain passes like an angel, with repeated attacks that would drop great Tour de France champions, Miguel Indurain, Lance Armstrong, and Jan Ullrich like hot stones.  Marco Pantani was the last rider to win the Giro d' Italia/Tour de France double in 1998.  A feat "Lance Armstrong never attempted."

The film is a biographical masterpiece.  Marco Pantani loved his bicycle as a youth, he assembled and disassembled his bicycle repeatedly in order to make it "lighter and faster."  Pantani would be heard late at night adjusting his cleats, "backward and forward two centimeters at a time" attempting to find the perfect adjustment; a habit ingrained in all great professional cyclists.  His mother scolded him for giving his bicycle washes in the bathtub.

When Marco Pantani turned professional he wanted to quit because he thought professional cycling was equivalent to "the mafia."  A very insightful precept.  In the mafia as a made guy, you play by the rules and maintain omerta, or silence about the family.

In the family of professional cycling, millions of euros are cycled in sponsorship money, and millions more can be earned by a professional rider in commercial endorsements contingent upon performance.  Everybody plays by the same rules.  Everyone knows if you are successful you will be handsomely rewarded, but if you are caught cheating you will be thrown to the wolves to fend for yourself.  The big money players walk free.  A dead soldier can be replaced instantly without a qualm, but the family survives unimpeded.

But Marco Pantani was an impulsive man.  Marco Pantani was warned to share the wealth during the 1999 Giro d' Italia, to refrain from attacking the group, to allow other teams to win stages.  But Marco Pantani was a driven man who wanted to be immortal, like Fausto Coppi.  Marco Pantani wanted to humiliate his opponents, to dominate races with huge time gaps.  According to the film, the family sought a way to remove Marco Pantani from contention because he refused to share the wealth with other big money players.  There were also suggestions big money gamblers were out to fix the 1999 Giro d' Italia!  What better way to guarantee a big payoff than to manufacture a positive dope test that would disqualify the odds on favorite?

Suppositions, conspiracy theories.  There have been reports circulated that Marco Pantani's hematocrit measured above the fifty percent threshold for several stages before he was thrown out of the 1999 Giro d' Italia for "health reasons."  There is also the connection between Marco Pantani and Francesco Conconi, the Italian doping doctor who experimented on riders with recombinant EPO under the pretext of developing a test to detect recombinant EPO.  Nevertheless, Marco Pantani was convinced he had been framed in a diabolical plot contrived by a group of greedy men who had been "corrupted."

Was Marco Pantani correct in his supposition?  Cycling, at the time, was rife with corruption.  Drugs were being abused flagrantly.  The highest circle of the UCI could be manipulated with bribes.  The teams ran doping programs without sanction.  Dark days had descended upon cycling.  Marco Pantani denied any wrongdoing, he explained, "he knew the doping test was coming, so he could have taken preventive measures to avoid detection if he had done anything wrong."  Of course, Marco Pantani knew as the leader of the Giro d' Italia he would be subjected to mandatory dope tests.  The real question is if Marco Pantani knew a mandatory test was required, why did his hematocrit test above the legal limit?

It is incredibly sad to see a man lose his dignity.  Marco Pantani was bludgeoned everywhere he went.  Even on simple training rides, he was sneered at by people who were convinced he was champion by means of dope.  The press was relentless in their accusations.  The former hero of Italy had now become a goat.

But even downtrodden men recover and Marco Pantani had a will of iron.  Marco Pantani was hit head-on by an automobile that somehow entered the course during a race.  His leg was broken with a compound fracture that required a metal splint to repair.  He had to undergo an extensive period of physical rehabilitation.  He was never expected to walk again let alone ride a bicycle.  Nevertheless, Marco Pantani did ride again, he rode so well he set the record up L'Alpe d'Huez, and won the Tour de France and Giro d' Italia in the same year.  (1998)

During the 2000 Tour de France Marco Pantani almost did the impossible.  He nearly caused Lance Armstrong to lose the race by setting an incredible tempo that made Lance Armstrong miss a feed and bonk!  Unfortunately, Marco Pantani became a victim of his own stratagem, he experienced stomach cramps and had to withdraw from the race.

Marco Pantani was finished as a top world class rider, he was a broken man who was destined to find solace in cocaine.  His cocaine dependence would increase until he was found dead alone and abandoned in his hotel room.

Italy was shocked.  The people who had rejected Marco Pantani in life mourned with loud lamentations his death.  His casket was carried on the shoulders of his admirers.  Eighty thousand people attended his funeral.

I wrote a comment to the Guardian newspaper online that was published.  I said the death of Marco Pantani, "broke my heart."  I watched the Mont Ventoux stage of the 2000 Tour de France dozens of times, marveling, entranced, in awe of those supreme climbers.  If Lance Armstrong was full to the gills with dope, what about Marco?

Conclusion

Nothing disgusts me more than to watch smug Greg LeMond comment like he is an exalted angel without blemish who is qualified to pontificate on the sins of others, while there may be many undiscovered skeletons in his own closet!  Sir Bradley Wiggins, most average in his tour performances before he became King and knighted, reminds me of the pre-cancer Lance Armstrong and the post-cancer survivor, money did not improve his performance or the fact that he moved to a more prestigious team.  Yet his exaltedness, Sir Bradley Wiggins, wishes to comment for our elucidation, looking down his pointed beak in disapproval upon the unwashed who would dare to question the source of such inexplicable improvements.  We rabble who dare to presume are considered conspirators who would dare to spit in the soup of cycling expectations by scenting a pretender in our mists, much like David Walsh, holding his nose while manning the barricades.  The tone of the film was spoiled by the presence of such exalted beings, Greg LeMond and Sir Bradley Wiggins!

The Tour de France is not won on mineral water alone!  In my opinion, there has never been, nor will there ever be a dope-free Tour de France champion.  Cycling groupthink has evolved in an Orwellian sense to a higher plain of manipulative rhetoric.  Cycling wants so desperately to move on from the steroid era that it is fabricating reality by manufacturing new truths.  Ignorance is Strength.  Doping in cycling must continue unabated, the stakes are too high, but the family wants the problem to vanish under the guise of distorted propaganda.  Sir Bradley Wiggins serves as an icon of this distorted propaganda: with his fabricated virtue, and his holy Team Sky who are above reproach with their fabricated philosophy of "ride clean."  Yes, we have been spoon fed these assurances before, and we note with disdain that Team Sky has employed doctors who have spotty backgrounds.

The stench, something is rotting, the air is saturated.  Marco Pantani was a pure climber, a great rider with a tortured soul.  A man who was spat upon by cycling.  A man who was singled out as an example and cruelly punished for playing the game by the family rules.  Eighty percent of the pack was using performance-enhancing drugs during the steroid era according to Tyler Hamilton. Most of whom were never punished.

But cycling has always maintained a double standard.  Marco Pantani and Floyd Landis were forced out, in disgrace, mocked, vilified, while Alberto Contador was welcomed back with open arms all forgiven.

"Never again" is their mantra.  Never demean another rider in such a hypocritical fashion is my mantra.  Treat people with respect is my mantra.  We all make mistakes and deserve to be forgiven.  We do not need to drive riders to such desperate extremes that they need to take their own lives alone and forsaken.  Shame on us!  Equity for all, man the barricades!

Cycling Doping History: What's Your Version?

Whenever I ride at night on a darkened street,
And storms are heard at dusk all-day-
O friend defenseless, ill and homeless,
Before me suddenly your shadow gleams.
Nikolay Nekrasov

Actually, the poem title is Whenever I Drive at Night (1847), not ride; but according to a book I read, the poem was an adaption of Alexander Pushkin: Wherever I may Wander (1833), which is probably misleading!  Being a poor liberal arts student with a smattering of biology, who am I to not suffer from confusion, especially when I was not there to inquire of the poet himself as to his supposed plagiarism, and had to guess instead.  Or incapable, through lack of specialized knowledge; I must rely upon and accept expert opinions of other people, who are supposed to be all-knowing, and subject to vetting and fact checks before publishing a load of rot.  You think I trust Greg LeMond for one instant after the load of crap he has disseminated on the cycling community?  Well, I don't.  Do you think my case against Greg LeMond is insufficient to prove that there were opportunities for Greg LeMond and the peloton of his era to dope with both blood and drugs?  The fact that the 1984 USA Olympic team used blood transfusions to medal in the Olympic games, where America as a country had not won an Olympic medal since 1912 when Carl Schutte won a bronze medal in the individual time trial, and the American team, Carl Shutte, Alvin Loftus, Albert Krushel, and Walter Martin won bronze medals in the team time trial; is pointless to discuss, because there was no official Olympic games prohibition against using blood transfusions in 1984 or 1912!  Nevertheless, according to the La Vie Claire apologists, blood doping was a top-secret venture unknown to the professional peloton, (except for the East Germans): La Vie Claire, Greg LeMond, and Bernard Hinault were completely ignorant of these methods, and even if they were aware, they would never stoop so low.  But, perhaps you are joking about the impeccable honesty and integrity of Tour de France champions of the past, which is sheer nonsense, regardless of your psychological bias or selective references.  The Lance Armstrong haters spit vitriol for years with no scientific proof, yet they were convinced of their correctness, and woe to anyone who would have the audacity to disagree with them!  Of course, you can't disagree with the Greg LeMond groupies or their rock-solid scientific grounds, the man never failed a dope test, even if methods of doping that existed at the time had no known tests or the fact there was no prohibition as to the use of some of these methods; even if they had known performance-enhancing qualities.  But, we are devolving into illogical semantics: if it is not prohibited, then can it be cheating? Can a person rationalize the use of substances known to improve performance because they are not yet illegal, as an acceptable practice to win prizes and accolades?  Then there are bleating sheep, who, when suspecting others of using the same methods now prohibited by statute, encourage them to confess their crimes, to come clean, to display what? a guilty consciousness?  Or do these tears of remorse, as to the damage done to cycling by miscreant present-day dopers merely display your own repressed guilty cognitive subconsciousness, and are you, Mr. LeMond, trying to assuage your old crimes by casting stones at others, when you yourself did not suffer any penalty?  Do your pleas for clean riding and your accusations express the fact that you cheated your fellow cyclists like a worthless scoundrel; or the fact that your sordid conduct was rewarded with laurels?

So who developed the test to detect synthetic EPO?  Was it Jacques de Ceaurriz?  Or was it LNDD without Jacques de Ceaurriz?  Was it Don Calin at UCLA?  Or was it Christiane Ayotte in Montreal?  What was the true role Francesco Conconi played in the development of a test to detect recombinant erythropoietin, and what role did the International Olympic Committee play in the development of this test?  Perhaps claims made in certain cycling reference books should be subjected to better editing before publishing, because certain "facts" presented as "truth" may in fact be nothing more than grossly misleading rubbish.  If you suspect books or articles of spouting disinformation, then why not invest some of your time and your effort to write a book review pointing out all of the errors yourself.  Or better yet, why don't you offer your services as an editor, since your knowledge is all-encompassing.  Don't forget to provide references to support your assertions.  And if you have something to say, say it publicly, you don't need to hide behind a veil of secrecy.  Because, as it stands, your corrections are selective, incomplete, and based on an agenda.  Not quite an objective way of proving things, is it?

I would rather be reading Alexi Pisemsky, One Thousand Souls, than worry about who was doping with what, or when, in the 1980s; or concern myself with who is cheating now.  Because, even contemporary truth is subjected to fraud, fiction, cover-up, ignored, or distorted by evil people who have mercenary motives to mislead the public.  This misleading agenda leads directly to disagreements and factual errors.  Thus your version may not exactly coincide with my version, but that does not mean that I will forego my version to accommodate a popular cycling opinion invented by Greg LeMond; using the resources available to me.  Of course, I expect you to do the same, never claiming a monopoly as to what constitutes historical truth or to what constitutes historical fallacy.  That way we can agree to co-exist.

Finally, I don't do promotions or advertising on my blog spot!

Slaying the Badger: Book Review

Slaying the Badger, Richard Moore, Velo Press, 2012

Superbly written, organized, and researched.  Richard Moore is a child prodigy of the eighties cycling scene, he writes with passion.  As to the question posed by the book title, was the 1986 Tour de France the very best of all time?  The answer is probably subjective; were the epic battles between Jacques Anquetil and Raymond Poulidor "the eternal second" inferior in quality?  How about the legendary struggles between Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich?  After all, the Lance Armstrong era glued millions of entranced fanatics to the Tour de France, not only in the United States, but all over the world, and a simple decree cannot erase seven years of cycling history.  Let us say that the 1985 and 1986 Tours de France combined may be the best cycling story of all time.  The 1985 Tour de France was fraught with bizarre circumstances that would lead to a bitter feud between two great champions, Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond, who rode on the same team, La Vie Claire, in the 1986 Tour de France.  Query, in the 1985 Tour de France, when given the opportunity on the Luz Ardiden climb, why did Greg LeMond refuse to work with Stephen Roche and attack Bernard Hinault who was three minutes behind suffering from the side effects of a broken nose?  Bernard Hinault went over the handlebars and landed on his face when his front wheel collided with Phil Anderson's back wheel less than a kilometer from the finish line at St. Etienne.*  On the Luz Ardiden climb, Bernard Hinault could not keep pace with Greg LeMond and Stephen Roche. If Greg LeMond and Stephen Roche had seized the initiative to attack and drop Bernard Hinault, they may have engineered one of the greatest upsets in cycling history.  Greg LeMond may have won the 1985 Tour de France.**  In retrospect one may argue Greg LeMond and Stephen Roche committed the greatest tactical blunder in cycling history.  Paul Kochli, sports director, La Vie Claire, has been accused of ordering Greg LeMond to slow his tempo allowing Bernard Hinault to make up enough time to remain maillot jaune.  Was Greg LeMond really the loyal domestique who was willing to sacrifice his probable Tour de France victory and follow orders to protect the maillot jaune?  After the Luz Ardiden climb, Greg LeMond wanted to quit the 1985 Tour de France feeling he had been cheated by La Vie Claire.  Did Bernard Tapie, Bernard Hinault, and Greg LeMond really strike a grand bargain in a secret meeting, where Bernard Hinault assured Greg LeMond he would work as a domestique for Greg LeMond in the 1986 Tour de France?  Could Bernard Hinault relinquish his role as patron to a frail, paranoid, weak man, who was afraid of his own shadow?  In the 1986 Tour de France, Bernard Hinault could not resist a suicide attack, doomed to fail, even though he had an insurmountable lead of over five minutes on Greg LeMond, and with conservative riding, Bernard Hinault could have easily won the 1986 Tour de France.  Was this insane attack nothing more than a bold move to destroy the pack and sort out the pretenders, while testing the mettle of his main rival Greg LeMond?  Was Bernard Hinault merely having fun, mixing things up, honoring the terms of his agreement with Greg LeMond?  Or did Bernard Hinault suffer from "Merckxissimo!" trying to stay away from the chase, therefore cementing his legendary status in the annals of cycling forever?  Nevertheless!  Greg LeMond squandered a golden opportunity to bury Bernard Hinault on L'Alpe d'Huez!  Except for a bravado of bluster from both gladiators years after the event: nothing happened on L'Alpe d'Huez except for a few chants of "Hinault!" and a few affectionate pats on Greg LeMond's backside by appreciative fans.  Greg LeMond claims he was afraid of being punched in the kidneys by some disgruntled fan like Eddy Merckx in the 1975 Tour de France.  Bernard Hinault claims he told Greg LeMond to stay on his wheel for the entire climb to deter such attacks, to protect him from harm.  Again was Bernard Hinault testing Greg LeMond's mettle and did Greg LeMond again refuse an opportunity to attack Bernard Hinault?  After the hand in hand, grateful teammate theatrics at the summit of L'Alpe d'Huez; Bernard Hinault assured the public the race was not over; there was an upcoming individual time trial left to consider!  More of Bernard Hinault's psychological intimidation aimed to encourage Greg LeMond's paranoia?  Indeed, one has to agree with Shelley Verses, soigneur, La Vie Claire: "Hinault was a man among boys, he ruled in every country." One might also agree with Shelley Verses when she tearfully complained that Bernard Hinault tortured Greg LeMond during the 1986 Tour de France.  Bernard Hinault was still patron even though Greg LeMond wore the golden fleece.

Did La Vie Claire Ride Clean?

Greg LeMond has long maintained the 1980's era of cycling was dope free, and Greg LeMond was the only "clean" champion.  The hiatus from doping in cycling during the Greg LeMond era, and on the La Vie Claire team are certain distortions of the truth.  Greg LeMond knew there was doping going on in the peloton during his reign and so did the UCI who provided doping control during the Tour de France and the other grand tours. Greg LeMond was tested on numerous occasions and even feared his 1986 Tour de France samples could be sabotaged with contamination to ensure a Bernard Hinault victory.

Let us consider the incredible results of La Vie Claire during the 1986 Tour de France, as Richard Moore describes in his most excellent book.

"For Paul Kochli, the 1986 Tour represented his greatest achievement as a directeur sportif.  In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that the La Vie Claire performance that year stands as the greatest team performance the Tour has ever seen, the roll call of honors included six stage wins; first overall with LeMond second with Hinault, fourth with Andy Hampsten; seventh with Nikki Ruttiman; and twelfth with Jean-Francois Bernard; the team prize; the combined competition (LeMond); the king of the mountains, (Hinault); and the white jersey for best young rider (Andy Hampsten)." P.267

Very impressive!  These results are better than anything U.S. Postal produced and better than English speaking, British based Team Sky!  Of course, there were four great riders on this team, Bernard Hinault, five Tour de France victories; Greg LeMond, three Tour de France victories; Andy Hampsten, one Giro d' Italia victory; and Jean-Francois Bernard, French national champion; that could explain such results sans dope.  However, in earlier Tours, when Bernard Hinault rode for Cyrille Guimard and Team Renault, Bernard Hinault had margins of victory of over ten minutes! suggesting the possible use of performance-enhancing drugs.  But as everyone knows speculation is not proof, and without further information, nothing will ever be proven.

Then there is the case of Pascal Simon.  In the 1983 Tour de France, Laurent Fignon won "by default" when Pascal Simon crashed and broke his shoulder blade during a Pyrenees stage.  But as Richard Moore points out:

"LeMond had also won the main race by default, also at the expense of Pascal Simon, when the Frenchman was stripped of his victory at the pre-tour Dauphine Libere after testing positive [for performance-enhancing drugs].  "When you win a race that way, it's a victory clear and simple because the guy who beat you probably wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't been using illegal substances," said Greg LeMond at the time.  But, it says everything about the lenient attitude toward doping at the time that Pascal Simon was permitted to return and start the following month's Tour, a tour he would certainly have won had he not crashed." P.92; italics added.

So from Greg LeMond's own statement not only did he know about the existence of performance-enhancing drug use within the peloton, he benefited "by default."

Then there was the issue of the post-Tour criteriums La Vie Claire appeared in that Paul Kochli allegedly hated because these races were saturated with amphetamine abuse and no doping control.  To circumvent this problem Paul Kochli decided to forgo the European criteriums, he obtained sponsorship with Red Zinger and La Vie Claire appeared in the Coors Classic.  This would indicate an effort to maintain clean riding within the team.

Then there was the acetaminophen throwing incident with Shelley Verses where Paul Kochli screamed: "there will be no doping on this team!"

But, then there was Dane Kim Anderson, who rode for La Vie Claire and tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs no less than four times.  As Richard Moore accurately states in Slaying the Badger

"And the picture painted by the soccer player Tony Cascarino is hardly encouraging.  Cascarino recounts one occasion where '[Bernard] Tapie had summoned his personal physician from Paris, and after dinner, we lined up in one of the rooms and rolled up our sleeves for a "booster" injection.  I hadn't a clue what exactly the boost was, [but they] weren't the only injections at the club.  Before games we were offered shots: twenty tiny pinpricks injected into the lower back by what looked like a stapling gun.  I asked one of the physics what it was and if it was legal.  'Of course, it's legal' he replied.  And then he smiled.  'And anyway, our doctor does all of the tests at the club.'" P.137.

But then again Shelley Verses claims in Slaying the Badger she never saw or knew of any performance substance drug abuse on La Vie Claire.  However, in an interview with John Wilcockson, where the Emma O' Reilly allegations against Lance Armstrong are discussed in L.A. Confidential: the drug running, disposal of syringes, applying cosmetics to hide bruising or needle marks, Shelley Verses makes this revealing statement:

"It is part of a soigneur's job to dispose of syringes.  And I used to drive all over the Continent getting drugs, legal drugs.  And I often lent guys makeup to hide bruises.  Riders are so vascular because they have no body fat, and they bruise easily."  Source: 23 Days In July, John Wilcockson, Da Capo Press, 2004. P. 143; italics original text.

As has been mentioned in several publications, what was once considered a legal drug in 1986, is now on the WADA prohibited list, and is forbidden as performance-enhancing.  Although Shelley Verses does not mention La Vie Claire specifically, (she also worked for the 7-11 Team); the implications are obvious.  Professional cycling teams were injecting supplements in order to gain a competitive advantage in the middle nineteen-eighties; a fact that was only briefly alluded to in Slaying the Badger.  Amphetamines were used in post-Tour de France criterium races.  This candid admission by Shelley Verses is the first direct link to the possible use of drugs by the La Vie Claire team; Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond!  And this admission explodes the Greg LeMond myth that the professional peloton was riding without the aid of pharmaceutical supplements in the nineteen-eighties!

Then there are the "miracle" cures.  On Stage 17 Gap to Col du Granon Bernard Hinault suffered from a thigh hematoma on the Col d'Izoard.  As Robert Moore recounts:

"Hinault began to suffer, earlier in the stage, he dropped back to the doctor's car for medical attention: apparently for his knee: and he would later, while negotiating a twisting descent, be seen fiddling with a hex key, adjusting his saddle height searching for a more comfortable position." P.232.

But the next day, like magic, everything is cured with no side effects!

Then there is a magical Greg LeMond.  Robert Moore includes this incredible statement from LeMond:

"I suffered on the Col du Granon," says LeMond.  "I ran out of fuel.  [LeMond] managed to avoid the dreaded fringale [bonk!] but having run his reserves so low, he was concerned about the following day's stage, in Briancon, and tackling the Col du Lautaret, the Col du Galibier, and Col de la Croix de Fer before finishing with the fabled ascent of L'Alpe d'Huez." P.232.

Nevertheless, quoting Jean-Paul Vespini, The Tour is Won on the Alpe, Velo Press, 2008. Greg LeMond told French Journalist Henri Haget.

"Bernard Hinault is not the man I knew at the start of my career.  He's obsessed with winning his sixth tour, as if he's forgotten that, without me, he never would have won his fifth.  I gave him the 1985 Tour.  He should remember that, but instead, he's forgotten that, but instead, he's created a terrible environment.  The worst was the finish at L'Alpe d'Huez when we crossed hand in hand.  It was all a big show.  I let myself get played like a novice.  I had the yellow jersey and at the foot of the climb, Hinault swore to me that it was all over, that he wouldn't attack me again on the way to Paris.  He knew I could drop him at the first turn but he asked me to let him lead on the climb to win the stage.  I could have taken five minutes out of him by the top.  I shouldn't have had any qualms about doing so." [Source: L'Express Sport, February 1988.] P.76; italics added.

So how did a man who had run out of glucose magically recover to the extent he could have dropped the badger on the first turn of L'Alpe d'Huez?  Certainly not from eating Mexican food?  If that was the case Greg LeMond would have been asking Bernard Hinault to use his hat!

Nevertheless, the phantom injury Bernard Hinault suffered also seems to have a speedy recovery with no effect on his performance.  Quoting Jean-Paul Vespini, The Tour Is Won on the Alpe, Velo Press, 2008.

"The embittered Badger responded much later, in his memoirs.  He wrote, "It wasn't my fault if LeMond didn't understand how I was conducting my race.  I did what I did to benefit him, and him alone.  I had told him that I would help him, give him a hand in winning the race.  At L'Alpe d'Huez, I could have buried him.  I think I could have put a lot of time on him that day if I had thrown down the gauntlet.  At no point was I trying to beat him.  After L'Alpe d'Huez, I only waged a small psychological war to see exactly what he was made of."  [Source: Memories of the Peloton, Bernard Hinault, Noel Henderson (Translator), Vitesse Press, 1989.] P.76; italics added.

Conclusion:

Even an injured Badger was a man among boys, and he ruled in every country!  So many mixed messages from the 1985 and 1986 Tours de France.  The truth if one exists may never be parceled out.  But the beauty of Taming the Badger besides the incredibly accurate research and the stupendous writing is the heuristic value of the book that makes you think and ponder what happened, and what could have happened if fate and karma had not intervened.  For example, if Laurent Fignon had not had a freak Achilles tendon injury would any of this history have existed?  If Bernard Hinault had not suffered a knee injury during the 1983 Tour of Spain would he have been dumped by Cyrille Guimard and team Renault?  What would have happened if Bernard Tapie had not decided to lure away Greg LeMond with false promises of royalties on the Look clipless pedal Tapie was developing at the time?  The pondering is endless, what-ifs abound.  But the biggest question of all is without Hinault's senseless attack, with a five-minute twenty-five-second lead, would Greg LeMond have won the 1986 Tour de France, and was Greg LeMond really the strongest rider that year?  Have fun figuring that one out for yourselves!

UPDATE:

*To be fair, Phil Anderson claimed the accident was caused by an imperfection in the road that caused his bicycle to lose traction and slide enough for a collision to occur.  Bernard Hinault called Phil Anderson an amateur racer and blamed his lack of experience for the crash.  Because the crash occurred within the last kilometer of the stage, Bernard Hinault received the same time as the group he was riding with.  Riders are not penalized because spectacular crashes often occur during sprints at the end of stages.  Riders held up behind crashes have no ability to maneuver through the carnage.  Thus they deserve no penalty.

**Greg LeMond has declared many times he is the rightful winner of the 1985 Tour de France.  Wishful thinking does not win Grand Tours.  Cunning, determination, luck, and talent win Grand Tours.  Sickness and accidents happen during Grand Tours.  At the finish line, the best course time wins Grand Tours.  Whining after the race is over is the tactic of losers.  Bernard Hinault is the rightful winner of the 1985 Tour de France.  Greg LeMond finished where he belonged, a podium second place.  If you have a golden opportunity to win, go!