dmark 

Living in the most densely populated state on a few minutes from NYC (North NJ) I need to travel almost 1 hour to south NJ or go to the ONE theatre in NYC (an hour trip) screening it. Very limited distribution. I'd love to see it ASAP but may end up waiting for streaming or DVD.
I guess I'll ride my Zurich today instead.

eljayski 

I'm going to see it this coming week at a local theater.

Bruce27

Seeing this tomorrow. Don’t usually get excited about movies, let alone documentaries, but I’m pretty psyched about watching this.

goose70

I doubt I'm near either of the two theaters that are showing this.

HeyItsSara

Trek is the bike shop that's most convenient for me. I have to do what works for me, despite being a big Lance fan.
Also ... I don't see any harm in Lance-fans watching this. I plan to. Cycling is cycling.

beng1

I can wait until it comes out on Piratebay, less chance of getting head-lice that way too.

big john

I think Heiden's legs shrank after he switched to cycling.

Psimet2001 

I watched the movie this last weekend. This is in fact the exact position he takes. "no problem in '85. That was my job. '86 left me with my jaw on the floor"

Psimet2001 

I'm surprised more in here haven't' seen it yet. Then again I am lucky enough to be near a major metro area with a couple of theatre options.

We chose to drive out to Highland Park (center of almost all of the John Hughs films and where they had the killings at the parade last year). It was a good movie. My kids both watched and came away really liking it. To the point that the youngest is now interested in riding instead of only riding at races when I have signed him up.

Wife liked it.

Me....It was good. I have never heard so much from Pedro Delgado. I wasn't AS familiar with the struggles of Laurent during that tour as I watched it happen as a kid and he was a made for a movie stereotypical evil foreign antagonist for the teen American that I was. BUT - there is so much more to the Greg story that isn't covered. No time at all on the '90 tour. Not as much as there should have been on the '86 tour. A 5 second reference to the '89 world championships. Absolutely nothing about any of the ventures he has been involved with afterwards. The multiple bike companies, Trek, the Lance issues, etc. There is a couple of references to Lance but I don't believe any are made by Greg. There is the jab in the last second that says he then went on to win the 90 and still to this day remains the ONLY American to ever win the Tour *nice*.

Definitely worth going to see. If you are newer to the sport then worth seeing. If you are intimately familiar with Greg's story then it is entertaining but not "Amazing". Lots of footage from home videos that I have never seen before but also a ton of footage we have all seen many times.

dmanthree

Nope. He was clean, and actually retired because he refused to dope. Like he said, they have chemicals that turn donkeys into stallions. Same for Hampsten.

Fredo76

As mainly low-brow fare makes it to my local theater, I wasn't surprised to find it missing. AMC Theaters supposedly has it, but no showings within 50 miles of me, and none scheduled for Albuquerque, either.

I watched Greg Lemond race IRL. Guess that'll have to do!

eljayski 

just saw the movie. entertaining and informative!

Psimet2001 

Yeah I have always felt he was "clean" with "" because PEDs aren't Black and white more of a sliding scale. Doping is black and white - there are rules and tests and levels. Like auto racing there are always slight advantages that can be found that aren't explicitly against the rules...yet.

The way he has always avoiding talking about the 90 win makes my Spidey senses tingle. In general I don't believe he ever did any long term systematic doping to achieve results. I believe the same of Hampsten. As such and listening to all those that raced in that era (even those I talk to who were domestic pros along side him in the late 70's early 80's) Greg was absolutely one of the best cyclists who has ever existed and competed.

Jughed

My post with the picture was a joke - at the time we were discussing the Lance/Greg feud and Lances doping/cheating. I saw that picture of him, and well... thats a pretty big dude for a cyclist. Big arms, big legs - kinda thick.

It was a joke, but was it?

He wasn't racing "clean" riders. Riders of his era were taking steroids, amphetamines, speed, straight coke - and all sorts of other substances, and he was beating them.

The new monsters or animals as he called them were the EPO crowd. He may not have used EPO - but what about all the things the riders of his day were using?

Personally, I don't think any aspect of professional sports have been "clean" since well into the 1960's. Can a 100% clean rider beat a field of people taking who knows what? I'm skeptical.

fishboat

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was really good. I knew of the shotgun accident and his '89 win, but not the details. The movie didn't go into his pre-tour training, but given the shotgun injury and length of his recovery, I think Lemond is just one of those that had raw talent. If you look at his initial rise from raw "haven't got a clue about racing" stage to winning races, and getting hired as a pro in EU, a very brief time, again..raw talent makes it happen.

I think the lack of covering his 90 win in the documentary makes sense. It just would have dragged on a point that was already made. The "story" of the documentary was complete with the 89 win. If you're not sure what that means..watch the documentary.

People can be as skeptical as they wish..but without any evidence..at all..it's just opinion.

chaadster

I just saw the film this morning, and while it was interesting, it wasn’t great. It seemed like a pretty formulaic documentary, based around Lemond’s psychology during that time between the TdF wins. There wasn’t a lot in the film which I wasn’t already— at least somewhat— familiar with, except Fignon’s swollen, left nut (&#128522, so while entertaining, it was well short of riveting. I think the charismatic Delgado was the best part! On a more serious note, though, I’m more impressed now with Lemond’s courage, honesty, and integrity having seen the film and better understanding the extent of his personal struggles.

dmanders

I live in Knoxville as does Lemond. He is making bikes again -- carbon and electric. He is pretty"thick" for a bike rider. Never saw him race in person but he must have been explosive. As for Heiden I did see him race in person once and got to see his thighs when I stood by him after a crash waiting for an ambulance. They were like hams. I can only imagine what they were like when he was skating. Got to find some time to see the movie, which is playing locally, -- thanks for the reminder.

dombey19

I also live in Knoxville and saw the movie at its premiere, sitting just a few rows behind Greg and his wife Kathy. After the movie they took questions from the audience and elaborated on the details of the film. Both were very personable and friendly. A great evening.

Eric F 

Greg's World Championship wins are on YouTube. Some pretty amazing racing.

thegruyere

A legend

fishboat

For those interested in the documentary, you might catch up on a recent (post-documentary release) interview with Greg.

The interview sheds a whole lot of light on a number of topics touched on in the Last Rider.

See
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...d-my-hero.html

Calsun

Lemond retired because he got too old to compete at the European pro race level. Unfortunate that thanks to his going hunting he lost 3 seasons of racing when he was nearing the end of his prime. Like most pro riders of his generation he would take the winter months off and not start training until the spring. He would not have been able to compete against today's riders that work year round (as Lance Armstrong did) to stay in shape and gain in endurance.

Drugs of one kind or another have been around for the history of competitive (for money) bike racing. The concerns started with the well publicized death of Tom Simpson in 1967 when he died of heat stroke that was the result of dehydration from his having taken a large dose of amphetimines and alcohol that were a diuretic combination. With lack of fluids the blood becomes thicker and the heart has to work much harder and this had fatal results for Simpson.

Many riders make use of high altititude tents and other training practices to gain an advantage over other riders. The ones that have consistently won the Tour de France over the decades have been riders with a higher tolerance of pain and sheer guts along with a strong team of domestique or servant riders.

merlinextraligh

So, there is the slightest kernel of truth in your post. Riders like Anquetil, Merckx, and still LeMond, focused on a year long calendar. Armstrong focused post cancer on solely the TDF.

However, the assertion that Lemond could not have competed against Armstrong on a level playing field is bonkers. If you look at their VO2 max, Lemond’s was off the chart. Lemond was lighter than Armstrong, who’s weight made it very problematic that he could have possibly climbed the way he did without chemical enhancement.

Then add in the fact that LeMond won the TDF 3 times, at a time that there was no precedent for an American to do such a thing, and with little team support. By contrast Armstrong “won” his tours with the benefit of the road paved byLemond and with amazing team support.

Put LeMond and Armstrong in the same TDF with equal team support, and tight doping controls, I ‘m betting the farm onLemond.

merlinextraligh

And the assertion that Lemond retired because he was too old to compete lacks any support. In 1991, Lemond was 30 years old. Many riders have won the TDF in the 30’s including Bartolo,, Coppi, Indurain, Ris, and your hero Armstrong.

Lemond’s post 1990 TDF performance didn’t drop, it just wasn’t enough to keep up with a peloton that was getting faster.

And guess what, that coincides exactly with a dramatic increase in EPO use, in an era where ther was no effective test for EPO.

Other riders in the era, such as Frankie Andreu, who your hero slandered and destroyed, found that they could no longer keep up with a drugged peloton, without doping themselves.

So, apply Occam’s razor; what’s the mostl likely explanation? An extremely gifted 3 time TDF winner in his prime can no longer keep up because of his age ( an age at which Armstrong and others are winning) or he can’t keep up with the dopers in an era where EPO had become rampant, and there was no effective test.

The evidence of EPO doping starting right around the era of Lemond’s decline is overwhelming. I’m kinda surprised that anyone that purports to have followed professional cycling from that era would still try to make such an argument.

Denial is not a River in the Africa.

merlinextraligh

No doubt, cheating started with the first TDF, and drug use if not then, shortly thereafter. The difference was EPO.

Early on riders actually used strichnine. Prior to EPO, the drugs used were of little to any real advantage. Amphetamines might offer some short term advantage in races such as crits, but had their own performance drawback’s particularly over a 3 week tour. No one in their right mind, with current knowledge woud suggest Simpson helped his chances up Ventoux with Cognac and Amphetimines.

By contrast EPO can absolutely make you faster. At the margin with equally matched world class athletes, the advantage is enough that the undoped athlete can’t compete. Witness the fact that in the 7 tours Armstrong “won”, 20 of the 21 podium position holders were proven or admitted dopers.

In an era without an effective test for EPO, you could not compete at the highest level without it.