What do you think?
Rate this book
Slaying the Badger: LeMond, Hinault and the Greatest Ever Tour de France
The Tour de France is renowned for its chaos and drama. But no other Tour has quite compared to what played out in 1986. That year witnessed a show-stopping rivalry that had spectators across the world agog.
Greg LeMond , a fresh-faced and mercurial youngster, dubbed 'L'Am�ricain', was a na�ve Tour newbie. Frenchman Bernard 'The Badger' Hinault was five times winner and as tough as old boots.
Though polar opposites, they were both fiercely competitive, both equally brilliant. So why was the world shocked that they were at each other's throats? They were meant to be team-mates.
Their explosive rivalry broke every rule in the book. No one wins the Tour single-handed; out there your team counts for everything. After his previous year's win Hinault had pledged his absolute support for LeMond, but as 1986 the Tour circled France, his constant attacks on his team-mate seemed like cold-blooded sabotage.
Why was Hinault putting LeMond in jeopardy? Would he crack under the pressure? Something sinister was going on, but no one knew quite what.
Slaying the Badger relives the adrenaline, the agony, the camaraderie, the betrayals, and the pure exhilaration of that epic year, as the biggest conundrum of Tour history is finally laid bare.
Greg LeMond , a fresh-faced and mercurial youngster, dubbed 'L'Am�ricain', was a na�ve Tour newbie. Frenchman Bernard 'The Badger' Hinault was five times winner and as tough as old boots.
Though polar opposites, they were both fiercely competitive, both equally brilliant. So why was the world shocked that they were at each other's throats? They were meant to be team-mates.
Their explosive rivalry broke every rule in the book. No one wins the Tour single-handed; out there your team counts for everything. After his previous year's win Hinault had pledged his absolute support for LeMond, but as 1986 the Tour circled France, his constant attacks on his team-mate seemed like cold-blooded sabotage.
Why was Hinault putting LeMond in jeopardy? Would he crack under the pressure? Something sinister was going on, but no one knew quite what.
Slaying the Badger relives the adrenaline, the agony, the camaraderie, the betrayals, and the pure exhilaration of that epic year, as the biggest conundrum of Tour history is finally laid bare.
320 pages, Paperback
First published May 26, 2011
179 people are currently reading
2128 people want to read
About the author
Richard Moore
17 books66 followersRichard Moore is a freelance journalist and author. His first book, In Search of Robert Millar (HarperSport), won Best Biography at the 2008 British Sports Book Awards. His second book, Heroes, Villains & Velodromes (HarperSport), was long-listed for the 2008 William Hill Sports Book of the Year.
He is also the author of Slaying the Badger: LeMond, Hinault and the Greatest Ever Tour de France (Yellow Jersey, May 2011), and Sky’s the Limit: British Cycling’s Quest to Conquer the Tour de France (HarperSport, June 2011).
His latest book, The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the 1988 Olympic 100m final, will be published by Wisden Sports Writing in June, 2012.
He is also a former racing cyclist who represented Scotland at the 1998 Commonwealth Games and Great Britain at the 1998 Tour de Langkawi.
He is also the author of Slaying the Badger: LeMond, Hinault and the Greatest Ever Tour de France (Yellow Jersey, May 2011), and Sky’s the Limit: British Cycling’s Quest to Conquer the Tour de France (HarperSport, June 2011).
His latest book, The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the 1988 Olympic 100m final, will be published by Wisden Sports Writing in June, 2012.
He is also a former racing cyclist who represented Scotland at the 1998 Commonwealth Games and Great Britain at the 1998 Tour de Langkawi.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
June 19, 2019
I cannot believe it is 5 years since I read this, maybe time for a re-read ?
But before then this review is part of my never ending job of writing reviews for books that I neglected by not writing anything when I first joined GR.
So, if anyone has ever looked at my bookshelves they will see I am a keen follower of professional cycling and have been for a huge number of years, in fact a little known fact is that my father ( bless his little cotton socks) used to be a very good amateur who would think nothing of cycling down to Devon for the weekend from London. So I suppose I grew up in a cycling family where my dad built me my own personal bike. ( Both my bike (30yrs old) and my dads (probably around 50 yrs old) were stolen from me about 10 years ago and it was one of the saddest days of my life )
Anyway I digress, you get I'm a keen watcher and participator in cycling.
So I remember this Tour de France really well, at the time for keen followers it was really controversial. Hinault (The Badger) in his declining years after being a multi tour winner, his team mate (yes team mate) Lemond the up and coming new boy but expected to be the team leader.
Well, phew, blow me. Hinault obviously has no intentions of settling for second or for helping Lemond to win, Lemond, expecting assistance from the experienced Hinault is left to ride on his own. Bernard Tapie the team manager is very vague when pushed as to who is the team leader during the race, but later asserts it was of course Lemond. Hinault goes all out to win and had his opportunities that someone of his experience should have taken, but again later asserts that "he helped Lemond" with his attacking. Talk of bike sabotage and other skulduggery abounds as these two team mates and adversaries go head to head through some of the most punishing cycle routes known to man.
These two met many years later in 2007 at the "Tour"for the first time in many years and Hinault's view was "All the cycling stuff is in the past, were was no point in dredging it up ".
Badly injured by a shotgun accident in 1987 it took 2 years before Lemond returned to the Tour , and although he won twice more, he was never quite the same amazing rider with a huge number of pellets still lodged around his body.
It is interesting to note that a lot of people feel that Hinault never kept his promise to help Lemond, whilst some insist as does Hinault that all the attacks he made are to help Lemond be a winner. Who was the real winner, I leave you to decide if you read this fantastic book.
But before then this review is part of my never ending job of writing reviews for books that I neglected by not writing anything when I first joined GR.
So, if anyone has ever looked at my bookshelves they will see I am a keen follower of professional cycling and have been for a huge number of years, in fact a little known fact is that my father ( bless his little cotton socks) used to be a very good amateur who would think nothing of cycling down to Devon for the weekend from London. So I suppose I grew up in a cycling family where my dad built me my own personal bike. ( Both my bike (30yrs old) and my dads (probably around 50 yrs old) were stolen from me about 10 years ago and it was one of the saddest days of my life )
Anyway I digress, you get I'm a keen watcher and participator in cycling.
So I remember this Tour de France really well, at the time for keen followers it was really controversial. Hinault (The Badger) in his declining years after being a multi tour winner, his team mate (yes team mate) Lemond the up and coming new boy but expected to be the team leader.
Well, phew, blow me. Hinault obviously has no intentions of settling for second or for helping Lemond to win, Lemond, expecting assistance from the experienced Hinault is left to ride on his own. Bernard Tapie the team manager is very vague when pushed as to who is the team leader during the race, but later asserts it was of course Lemond. Hinault goes all out to win and had his opportunities that someone of his experience should have taken, but again later asserts that "he helped Lemond" with his attacking. Talk of bike sabotage and other skulduggery abounds as these two team mates and adversaries go head to head through some of the most punishing cycle routes known to man.
These two met many years later in 2007 at the "Tour"for the first time in many years and Hinault's view was "All the cycling stuff is in the past, were was no point in dredging it up ".
Badly injured by a shotgun accident in 1987 it took 2 years before Lemond returned to the Tour , and although he won twice more, he was never quite the same amazing rider with a huge number of pellets still lodged around his body.
It is interesting to note that a lot of people feel that Hinault never kept his promise to help Lemond, whilst some insist as does Hinault that all the attacks he made are to help Lemond be a winner. Who was the real winner, I leave you to decide if you read this fantastic book.
October 5, 2024
I know what it's like to suffer from the effects of a bad peach on the bike
September 23, 2012
It's hard to imagine a more 'explosive' start to a book about a rivalry between two of the greatest cyclists than the story of LeMond heading back to the team bus with diarrhoea only to find the portaloo removed and instead having to take an enormous shit in a large box of promotional postcards bearing his rivals face – literally shitting on Hinault himself! Brilliant!
What follows is Richard Moore's exhaustively researched story of the 1986 Tour de France battle between Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault. Hinault, the Badger of the title, is the defending champion; LeMond, L'Américain, his team mate and also his rival. Normally, you would expect team mates to work together and Hinault, who is close to retirement, had at the end of the previous tour appeared to promise that in his final year he would work for LeMond to win the race. Moore has spent some time interviewing everybody involved in the story: Hinault and LeMond obviously, but also other team mates, directeur sportifs and rivals from other teams. While that level of research shows throughout the book in the details that really bring the story alive to the reader, it is also the book's only slight weakness – at times, the book risks reading as page after page of quotes lifted directly out of his interviews. You start to wonder where the voice of Moore is in all this.
The book is split into three sections. Like a mini-Tour de France itself: a Prologue where the scene is set, the rivals are introduced and the two main interviews are begun; the rest of the book is split into two halves – the Départ delves into the history between the two riders starting on the Renault team under Cyrille Guimard up to the 1985 Tour de France back together again this time in the La Vie Claire team, and the Arrivée describes the events of the 1986 Tour de France, stage by stage, attack by attack. Early comparisons are made between Hinault and LeMond, one French Breton, stepped in the history of cycling and European (French) tradition. The other American, new to Europe, barely speaking French with no real idea of what he was getting into. Such different people and such different such different styles of rider, they were never going to be friends, having read the book it is surprising they managed to work together even as much as they did. In a way, Hinault's dominant personality and LeMond's more submissive side led into the patterns of behaviour that they never quite manage to break completely.
The 1986 race itself takes up only half the book, each stage gets it's own section and much coverage is made of the psychological battle between the two riders. While I was aware of the result of the race and the story of the broken promise, I wasn't aware of the detail, nor of the ambiguity of that broken promise. It seems Hinault was always hedging his bets and never promised to directly help LeMond win. Promising to mix things up so that LeMond can win is not the same thing at all. Hinault attacks LeMond, several times, but still can't seem to make up his mind. Maybe if he wins he can say that LeMond just wasn't strong enough and he had to take over, if LeMond wins he can say he kept his promise. More likely I think, Hinault just isn't the kind of rider who can gift the Tour to somebody. He needs to know that you deserved the win. Did he want LeMond to show more initiative and to counter-attack (or even attack first). LeMond and Hinault were just such different types of rider. Even approaching the end of the book, and knowing the ultimate result, I was still sucked into that feeling of urgency. I needed to get to the end to see who won! In the end I think Hinault won, LeMond may have won the Tour, but Hinault totally outclassed him in the battle of style and psychology.
Interestingly in today's climate, drugs are briefly mentioned. It seems that while their use was pretty widespread in the peloton at the time Paul Köchli, the directeur sportif, shows repeated evidence of a very strong anti-drugs stance on the La Vie Claire team. How able he was to enforce that remains open to debate. Especially in light of the team owner's, Bernard Tapie, apparent blatant disregard for rules or ethics in his other businesses or sponsorships.
Ultimately, it's not a definitive explanation of why what happened happened. Moore presents Hinault's view of things, and he presents LeMond's view of things. The two don't match up and there's not much Moore can do to pick a line between them. He presents his own view very briefly at the end, but like all of our opinions it's a cop-out because nobody really knows what Hinault was thinking.
What follows is Richard Moore's exhaustively researched story of the 1986 Tour de France battle between Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault. Hinault, the Badger of the title, is the defending champion; LeMond, L'Américain, his team mate and also his rival. Normally, you would expect team mates to work together and Hinault, who is close to retirement, had at the end of the previous tour appeared to promise that in his final year he would work for LeMond to win the race. Moore has spent some time interviewing everybody involved in the story: Hinault and LeMond obviously, but also other team mates, directeur sportifs and rivals from other teams. While that level of research shows throughout the book in the details that really bring the story alive to the reader, it is also the book's only slight weakness – at times, the book risks reading as page after page of quotes lifted directly out of his interviews. You start to wonder where the voice of Moore is in all this.
The book is split into three sections. Like a mini-Tour de France itself: a Prologue where the scene is set, the rivals are introduced and the two main interviews are begun; the rest of the book is split into two halves – the Départ delves into the history between the two riders starting on the Renault team under Cyrille Guimard up to the 1985 Tour de France back together again this time in the La Vie Claire team, and the Arrivée describes the events of the 1986 Tour de France, stage by stage, attack by attack. Early comparisons are made between Hinault and LeMond, one French Breton, stepped in the history of cycling and European (French) tradition. The other American, new to Europe, barely speaking French with no real idea of what he was getting into. Such different people and such different such different styles of rider, they were never going to be friends, having read the book it is surprising they managed to work together even as much as they did. In a way, Hinault's dominant personality and LeMond's more submissive side led into the patterns of behaviour that they never quite manage to break completely.
The 1986 race itself takes up only half the book, each stage gets it's own section and much coverage is made of the psychological battle between the two riders. While I was aware of the result of the race and the story of the broken promise, I wasn't aware of the detail, nor of the ambiguity of that broken promise. It seems Hinault was always hedging his bets and never promised to directly help LeMond win. Promising to mix things up so that LeMond can win is not the same thing at all. Hinault attacks LeMond, several times, but still can't seem to make up his mind. Maybe if he wins he can say that LeMond just wasn't strong enough and he had to take over, if LeMond wins he can say he kept his promise. More likely I think, Hinault just isn't the kind of rider who can gift the Tour to somebody. He needs to know that you deserved the win. Did he want LeMond to show more initiative and to counter-attack (or even attack first). LeMond and Hinault were just such different types of rider. Even approaching the end of the book, and knowing the ultimate result, I was still sucked into that feeling of urgency. I needed to get to the end to see who won! In the end I think Hinault won, LeMond may have won the Tour, but Hinault totally outclassed him in the battle of style and psychology.
Interestingly in today's climate, drugs are briefly mentioned. It seems that while their use was pretty widespread in the peloton at the time Paul Köchli, the directeur sportif, shows repeated evidence of a very strong anti-drugs stance on the La Vie Claire team. How able he was to enforce that remains open to debate. Especially in light of the team owner's, Bernard Tapie, apparent blatant disregard for rules or ethics in his other businesses or sponsorships.
Ultimately, it's not a definitive explanation of why what happened happened. Moore presents Hinault's view of things, and he presents LeMond's view of things. The two don't match up and there's not much Moore can do to pick a line between them. He presents his own view very briefly at the end, but like all of our opinions it's a cop-out because nobody really knows what Hinault was thinking.
January 24, 2015
Alas, a familiar - in many ways, iconic - story subjected to an uninspired re-telling. Accordingly, a source of disappointment (but entertaining enough that it wasn't a burden to get through it).
In all fairness, it's hard to be an objective audience for this project. Although I'm older than the author, I fully agree with him that the 1986 Tour de France was remarkable and memorable and exciting and - more importantly - forever changed the global balance in professional bicycle racing, not only welcoming the first US winner, and, in many ways, truly introducing the yellow jersey into American sporting lore, but also signalling the end an era in terms of, among other things, tactics and technology. But the point is that - if you were interested in bicycle racing in 1985 and 1986, well, how do I put it - you've heard all of this before. You know the players, the story, and, surprisingly, pretty much all of the details. Indeed, it's somewhat disconcerting how little "new" information is found between the covers. Heck, even the photos all looked familiar....
More irritating, however, is that I didn't find much in the way of art or beauty in the book. The facts are there, but they're buried under two (frustrating and distracting) layers: (1) the author's injection of himself into the story, as a far too noisy interviewer, whose self-centered anecdotes add little color to the story; and (2) the ultimate nature of the enterprise, presenting the two protagonists' intertwined tales as a he-said/she-said narrative that - well - cries out for a more aggressive and attentive editor. (For all the reasons that Gone Girl was flying off the fiction shelves a couple of years back, this book never rises above the author's self-imposed limitations.)
With apologies that this may sound petty, and some may consider this a spoiler (it's not - it has nothing to do with the story), the most telling anecdote in the book is in the epilogue/afterward section, where the author presents a copy of the book to one of the protagonists, who throws it into his car (basically) without consideration or comment. The author also chronicles the reactions of others mentioned in the book. Really? What ever happened to circulating an advance copy or draft, then subjecting the book to another round of edits, and then publishing it when it's ready? But now, no doubt, I'm being too harsh.... But, still...
If you're an old (or new) fan of LeMond, Hinault, Hampsten ... or the sport ... the book is probably worth your time. But don't look for this book in the pantheon of great cycling literature a generation from now....
In all fairness, it's hard to be an objective audience for this project. Although I'm older than the author, I fully agree with him that the 1986 Tour de France was remarkable and memorable and exciting and - more importantly - forever changed the global balance in professional bicycle racing, not only welcoming the first US winner, and, in many ways, truly introducing the yellow jersey into American sporting lore, but also signalling the end an era in terms of, among other things, tactics and technology. But the point is that - if you were interested in bicycle racing in 1985 and 1986, well, how do I put it - you've heard all of this before. You know the players, the story, and, surprisingly, pretty much all of the details. Indeed, it's somewhat disconcerting how little "new" information is found between the covers. Heck, even the photos all looked familiar....
More irritating, however, is that I didn't find much in the way of art or beauty in the book. The facts are there, but they're buried under two (frustrating and distracting) layers: (1) the author's injection of himself into the story, as a far too noisy interviewer, whose self-centered anecdotes add little color to the story; and (2) the ultimate nature of the enterprise, presenting the two protagonists' intertwined tales as a he-said/she-said narrative that - well - cries out for a more aggressive and attentive editor. (For all the reasons that Gone Girl was flying off the fiction shelves a couple of years back, this book never rises above the author's self-imposed limitations.)
With apologies that this may sound petty, and some may consider this a spoiler (it's not - it has nothing to do with the story), the most telling anecdote in the book is in the epilogue/afterward section, where the author presents a copy of the book to one of the protagonists, who throws it into his car (basically) without consideration or comment. The author also chronicles the reactions of others mentioned in the book. Really? What ever happened to circulating an advance copy or draft, then subjecting the book to another round of edits, and then publishing it when it's ready? But now, no doubt, I'm being too harsh.... But, still...
If you're an old (or new) fan of LeMond, Hinault, Hampsten ... or the sport ... the book is probably worth your time. But don't look for this book in the pantheon of great cycling literature a generation from now....
July 31, 2016
This year I decided to follow the Tour de France. I didn't want to slog through something as (potentially?) boring as TdF for dummies, but still wanted to learn a bit more about it, so I picked up Slaying the Badger. What I didn't know at the time is what a big deal Bernard "the Badger" Hinault or the '86 Tour was. But after reading this book & talking about it to some French people I see that it is a big deal, for multiple reasons (which I'll leave the book to explain)
Although I'd say it's more of a 4* for die-hard cycling fans, I'm giving it an overall three. Mainly because I was hoping for more human interest, but it does get a little more technical/dry than the average reader might want (and feels kind of repetitive, going over almost every stage of the '86 Tour)
But it has a lot going for it, too. It really brings to life the tactical planning, politics, intrigue, ego and drama involved in the competition. It really hammered home for me that idea that this is not just a race between 200+ riders to see who gets somewhere the fastest.
There are some great anecdotes. And some very specific ones (like the one about the guy who shits his pants during the Tour...literally...and keeps riding....) Now, that's dedication.
It was also interesting to read about the France/American relationships/politics. (especially as an American living in France)
So, if it's a topic that interests you, pick it up. If the idea of the Tour de France makes your eyes glaze over, then it's definitely not for you.
Although I'd say it's more of a 4* for die-hard cycling fans, I'm giving it an overall three. Mainly because I was hoping for more human interest, but it does get a little more technical/dry than the average reader might want (and feels kind of repetitive, going over almost every stage of the '86 Tour)
But it has a lot going for it, too. It really brings to life the tactical planning, politics, intrigue, ego and drama involved in the competition. It really hammered home for me that idea that this is not just a race between 200+ riders to see who gets somewhere the fastest.
There are some great anecdotes. And some very specific ones (like the one about the guy who shits his pants during the Tour...literally...and keeps riding....) Now, that's dedication.
It was also interesting to read about the France/American relationships/politics. (especially as an American living in France)
So, if it's a topic that interests you, pick it up. If the idea of the Tour de France makes your eyes glaze over, then it's definitely not for you.
May 4, 2013
Really enjoyed this in the end!
For me the book improved - from the part before they joined the same team and the part after!
The part plotting the early lives of Lemond and Hinault didn't really flow, feeling a bit fragmented partly due to the contradictions between those that the author interviewed. Not a surprise i guess and actually demonstrates the difficulty of combining 2 biographies about 2 very different people into one book.
Then they came together, and not only did the story flow but I was totally gripped! The blend, stage by stage, of the conflicting accounts of Lemond and Hinault, their cryptic & intellectual team managers providing a philosophical perspective, the sensational observations of the journalists and the detailed account by the author of the events of each stage was compelling.
If only there were more Hinault's today, and no radios!
In my view Richard Moores book about Robert Millar was better!
For me the book improved - from the part before they joined the same team and the part after!
The part plotting the early lives of Lemond and Hinault didn't really flow, feeling a bit fragmented partly due to the contradictions between those that the author interviewed. Not a surprise i guess and actually demonstrates the difficulty of combining 2 biographies about 2 very different people into one book.
Then they came together, and not only did the story flow but I was totally gripped! The blend, stage by stage, of the conflicting accounts of Lemond and Hinault, their cryptic & intellectual team managers providing a philosophical perspective, the sensational observations of the journalists and the detailed account by the author of the events of each stage was compelling.
If only there were more Hinault's today, and no radios!
In my view Richard Moores book about Robert Millar was better!
May 13, 2020
This is one of my favourite books and was a re-read, something I'm doing a lot of at the moment.
I love the way this book tells the story of the various protagonists of that 1986 Tour, and provides context. It might not be what you expect when you go into the book, you might think most of it would be about the race, but having the context means even though I knew the ending it still felt exhilarating.
What a race 1986 was, I wish I could have seen it. It had everything, but I can't decide whether it was the greatest Tour ever. Maybe after a few more re-reads and new cycling books I'll make up my mind.
Probably not though.
I love the way this book tells the story of the various protagonists of that 1986 Tour, and provides context. It might not be what you expect when you go into the book, you might think most of it would be about the race, but having the context means even though I knew the ending it still felt exhilarating.
What a race 1986 was, I wish I could have seen it. It had everything, but I can't decide whether it was the greatest Tour ever. Maybe after a few more re-reads and new cycling books I'll make up my mind.
Probably not though.
November 28, 2023
I enjoyed this much more than I expected, right from the start - and what a bold start it was!
These riders were active before I was even born but this book did a great job at explaining why I should care.
It's definitely a bit biased towards LeMond, but hey, so am I. Don't go in expecting a truly unbiased look (can a human being ever be *truly* unbiased?)
Oh yeah, I have to mention that I really appreciated Moore's writing style, which mirrors the way I also tend to write (not as, like, an actual write, but just... when writing this review, for example)
The man is not afraid of semi-colons or parentheses or other punctuation! Props!
These riders were active before I was even born but this book did a great job at explaining why I should care.
It's definitely a bit biased towards LeMond, but hey, so am I. Don't go in expecting a truly unbiased look (can a human being ever be *truly* unbiased?)
Oh yeah, I have to mention that I really appreciated Moore's writing style, which mirrors the way I also tend to write (not as, like, an actual write, but just... when writing this review, for example)
The man is not afraid of semi-colons or parentheses or other punctuation! Props!
December 2, 2024
Easily the best cycling book I’ve read this year. The story is riveting - driven by a combination of great interviews and history. The digging question “Did Bernard ever really intend to help Lemond win the tour?” echoes throughout the entire text. While not possible to reach an absolute conclusion, the journey there is very interesting and entertaining. A great read for anyone into pro cycling or the psyche of top level athletes.
August 14, 2022
Geweldig verslag van een -inderdaad- legendarische Tour. Pure wielernostalgie die me weer even terugbrengt naar de tijd dat ik met mijn pa tijdens zomervakanties naar de Tour keek.
October 17, 2025
I get sadder with each Richard Moore book that I read, a great writer lost too soon, another classic sports book
August 5, 2019
3,5. Rigtig spændende historier om to af de største ryttere, men bogen er undertiden meget rodet skrevet.
December 30, 2020
2021 is upon us, and what a brilliant book to close out the year 😊. As an avid cyclist and cycling fan, this was pure brain candy for me.
December 12, 2024
My actual favourite book of all time! Like a thriller, I genuinely could not put it down!
September 12, 2020
This book was captivating in its story but simple when you boiled it down to one simple truth. Even that one simple truth belies an easy, pithy explanation.
The truth is Bernard Hinault lied. Bernard Hinault went back on his word. Bernard Hinault wanted it both ways.
Hinault wanted to go for a record sixth Tour de France win but not be faulted if he fell short. He “promised” Greg LeMond he would help LeMond win the 1986 Tour de France after LeMond sacrificed his own ambitions in 1985 so Hinault could win his fifth. The truth however is that while LeMond clearly let Hinault win his fifth Tour de France in 1985, it’s just as clear that Hinault did not let LeMond win his first Tour a year later.
Hinault did not let LeMond win the 1986 Tour de France. This is absolutely clear. The truth as to why is less clear because people are complicated.
Hinault was simply telling LeMond what he wanted to hear during the 1985 Tour so LeMond would back off and help Hinault win. It was nonetheless a “promise” and certainly others – LeMond in particular – interpreted it as such. Hinault clearly did not view it as such, and he indicated this if not in his words then in his actions.
If it was a promise, then why did Hinault go back on his word in 1986? The answers are obvious if not explicit. Hinault wanted to win his sixth Tour. Hinault is a champion incapable of doing anything other than going all out to win. Hinault wanted to appease the majority French, majority pro-Hinault crowd who did not want the first native English speaker, much less American, Tour de France champion to succeed. More than anything else however, Hinault is a very proud man.
Hinault’s pride gets displayed over and over again throughout the book, and rarely in a positive light. There’s a reason it’s one of the seven deadly sins. One of the best quotes in the book is: “During a champion’s career, the cruelest moment comes when he realizes the extent of his weakness in the face of the attacks of insolent youth.” LeMond and others represented that insolent youth and challengers to Hinault’s thrown. It’s simply human nature to not want to give it up without a fight. If Hinault had simply rolled over he wouldn’t have been the champion he was in the first place.
Understanding where this pride comes from gave me a certain amount of empathy towards Hinault. I can see the underlying truth to every contradictory thing he says and does, both back in 1986 and in the present day when he’s interviewed for the book. The fact that Hinault is unable to admit, see or acknowledge those truths about himself is what makes the story so compelling. That theme is encapsulated by another excellent quote from the book, which I believe the author attributes to Bono: “Sometimes, my friend, the lie is ugly, but the truth is unbearable.”
Beyond the complicating factors of general human nature, the other factors contributing to the compelling story were just the unique aspects of cycling itself. I’ve never been the biggest cycling fan, and sometimes that led me to literally scratch my head at some of the unwritten rules that compelled the riders to make certain decisions.
First and foremost, it’s the unique case of cycling being both an individual and team sport simultaneously. Individuals win the Tour de France and other major races, but they don’t do so without the help of their team. There is also a unique hierarchy of contributors within a team. Being called a “domestique” has to be one of the more emasculating terms I’ve ever heard for an athlete.
This also of course contributed to the drama between Hinault and LeMond. They weren’t only competitors but also teammates. One of the more fascinating aspects of the book was learning about cyclists switching teams in large part because they were not going to be the designated leader on their current team.
Also fascinating were the dynamics between teams during a race. Most even casual fans have heard of a peloton but Hinault was the “patron” of the peloton and wielded his control to his advantage. The fact that competing teams would fall in line with this control was amazing to me.
This control also extended to when individuals broke free from the peloton. At one point in the book Hinault breaks free – without consulting his teammates by the way – but nonetheless LeMond can’t “chase” him because they’re teammates. LeMond tries to get other cyclists on other teams to “chase” Hinault and then that would allow LeMond to “ride” with them. Huh?
There was also a moment in the 1985 Tour where LeMond broke with another top rider, Roche, and was told not to “ride” with Roche – by his own team. My guess is that to “ride” together essentially means they could work together, and take turns drafting, to break free from the group rather than against each other and “attack” each other and thus use more energy and increase the risk the peloton might catch up. Roche claims in the book that if they had been allowed to “ride” together they could have finished 1-2 in the 1985 Tour.
I also think this control as the patron led Hinault to believe – either openly or not – that the rules did not apply to him. He demonstrated this in examples large and small that were cited in the book. Hinault attacked in the “feed zone”, which the peloton looked the other way at, and he attacked on a descent, which for some reason was not typically done previously. If you think the rules don’t apply to you, why would you not break your promise and go for another tour win?
Hinault would also never admit this, but I think his pride also contributed to playing both sides because he didn’t want to appear as the “bad” guy. By playing both sides, if he won his sixth Tour, well then LeMond lost it, and anything can happen. If Hinault lost but admitted that he was going for the win the whole time, then he is someone who can’t be trusted and broke his promise to someone who had kept his word the year before.
Nothing demonstrates this more than during the famous mountain stage in 1986 where they rode to the finish line virtually hand in hand. Hinault “protects” LeMond from the pro-Hinault crowd by riding first and not letting any spectators knock LeMond off his bike (another crazy aspect of the sport) while getting the stage win and passing the overall Tour “baton” to LeMond. Hinault wants to appear noble even if his real ambitions are more straightforward.
This duality was also rationalized by Hinault’s background and upbringing. Hinault came from a poor, rural, tough background in the Brittany region of France. While the nature argument has some validity to it, you’re ultimately responsible for your actions regardless.
This doesn’t even begin to broach what LeMond was going through during the 1986 Tour. Greg LeMond is one of the most recognizable sports icons from my childhood. I remember him appearing on numerous Sports Illustrated covers during his prime. I was amazed to read about all the obstacles LeMond had to overcome, besides the race itself, to win his first Tour de France.
One of the most dramatic parts of the book is when LeMond describes the Tour Director telling LeMond he’s rooting for LeMond to win but to nonetheless “watch out” for people attempting to sabotage LeMond. LeMond became obsessed with watching what he drank and what he ate in fear of being poisoned. That’s absolutely crazy – and believable.
Also intriguing to me was simply reading about the nature of the sport itself. Again, I’ve never been the biggest cycling fan, but I’ve always been amazed by them as athletes. Their devotion to essentially unending pain is astonishing.
Any time I’ve tuned into a Tour they all always look absolutely miserable. I think they’re amazing athletes, able to ride for hours on end at top speed, often straight up the Alps and then back down at breakneck, life-threatening speed. In fact, Hinault’s life- and career-threatening crash earlier in his career was also one of the more captivating parts of the book.
Overall a great book and I highly recommend it.
The truth is Bernard Hinault lied. Bernard Hinault went back on his word. Bernard Hinault wanted it both ways.
Hinault wanted to go for a record sixth Tour de France win but not be faulted if he fell short. He “promised” Greg LeMond he would help LeMond win the 1986 Tour de France after LeMond sacrificed his own ambitions in 1985 so Hinault could win his fifth. The truth however is that while LeMond clearly let Hinault win his fifth Tour de France in 1985, it’s just as clear that Hinault did not let LeMond win his first Tour a year later.
Hinault did not let LeMond win the 1986 Tour de France. This is absolutely clear. The truth as to why is less clear because people are complicated.
Hinault was simply telling LeMond what he wanted to hear during the 1985 Tour so LeMond would back off and help Hinault win. It was nonetheless a “promise” and certainly others – LeMond in particular – interpreted it as such. Hinault clearly did not view it as such, and he indicated this if not in his words then in his actions.
If it was a promise, then why did Hinault go back on his word in 1986? The answers are obvious if not explicit. Hinault wanted to win his sixth Tour. Hinault is a champion incapable of doing anything other than going all out to win. Hinault wanted to appease the majority French, majority pro-Hinault crowd who did not want the first native English speaker, much less American, Tour de France champion to succeed. More than anything else however, Hinault is a very proud man.
Hinault’s pride gets displayed over and over again throughout the book, and rarely in a positive light. There’s a reason it’s one of the seven deadly sins. One of the best quotes in the book is: “During a champion’s career, the cruelest moment comes when he realizes the extent of his weakness in the face of the attacks of insolent youth.” LeMond and others represented that insolent youth and challengers to Hinault’s thrown. It’s simply human nature to not want to give it up without a fight. If Hinault had simply rolled over he wouldn’t have been the champion he was in the first place.
Understanding where this pride comes from gave me a certain amount of empathy towards Hinault. I can see the underlying truth to every contradictory thing he says and does, both back in 1986 and in the present day when he’s interviewed for the book. The fact that Hinault is unable to admit, see or acknowledge those truths about himself is what makes the story so compelling. That theme is encapsulated by another excellent quote from the book, which I believe the author attributes to Bono: “Sometimes, my friend, the lie is ugly, but the truth is unbearable.”
Beyond the complicating factors of general human nature, the other factors contributing to the compelling story were just the unique aspects of cycling itself. I’ve never been the biggest cycling fan, and sometimes that led me to literally scratch my head at some of the unwritten rules that compelled the riders to make certain decisions.
First and foremost, it’s the unique case of cycling being both an individual and team sport simultaneously. Individuals win the Tour de France and other major races, but they don’t do so without the help of their team. There is also a unique hierarchy of contributors within a team. Being called a “domestique” has to be one of the more emasculating terms I’ve ever heard for an athlete.
This also of course contributed to the drama between Hinault and LeMond. They weren’t only competitors but also teammates. One of the more fascinating aspects of the book was learning about cyclists switching teams in large part because they were not going to be the designated leader on their current team.
Also fascinating were the dynamics between teams during a race. Most even casual fans have heard of a peloton but Hinault was the “patron” of the peloton and wielded his control to his advantage. The fact that competing teams would fall in line with this control was amazing to me.
This control also extended to when individuals broke free from the peloton. At one point in the book Hinault breaks free – without consulting his teammates by the way – but nonetheless LeMond can’t “chase” him because they’re teammates. LeMond tries to get other cyclists on other teams to “chase” Hinault and then that would allow LeMond to “ride” with them. Huh?
There was also a moment in the 1985 Tour where LeMond broke with another top rider, Roche, and was told not to “ride” with Roche – by his own team. My guess is that to “ride” together essentially means they could work together, and take turns drafting, to break free from the group rather than against each other and “attack” each other and thus use more energy and increase the risk the peloton might catch up. Roche claims in the book that if they had been allowed to “ride” together they could have finished 1-2 in the 1985 Tour.
I also think this control as the patron led Hinault to believe – either openly or not – that the rules did not apply to him. He demonstrated this in examples large and small that were cited in the book. Hinault attacked in the “feed zone”, which the peloton looked the other way at, and he attacked on a descent, which for some reason was not typically done previously. If you think the rules don’t apply to you, why would you not break your promise and go for another tour win?
Hinault would also never admit this, but I think his pride also contributed to playing both sides because he didn’t want to appear as the “bad” guy. By playing both sides, if he won his sixth Tour, well then LeMond lost it, and anything can happen. If Hinault lost but admitted that he was going for the win the whole time, then he is someone who can’t be trusted and broke his promise to someone who had kept his word the year before.
Nothing demonstrates this more than during the famous mountain stage in 1986 where they rode to the finish line virtually hand in hand. Hinault “protects” LeMond from the pro-Hinault crowd by riding first and not letting any spectators knock LeMond off his bike (another crazy aspect of the sport) while getting the stage win and passing the overall Tour “baton” to LeMond. Hinault wants to appear noble even if his real ambitions are more straightforward.
This duality was also rationalized by Hinault’s background and upbringing. Hinault came from a poor, rural, tough background in the Brittany region of France. While the nature argument has some validity to it, you’re ultimately responsible for your actions regardless.
This doesn’t even begin to broach what LeMond was going through during the 1986 Tour. Greg LeMond is one of the most recognizable sports icons from my childhood. I remember him appearing on numerous Sports Illustrated covers during his prime. I was amazed to read about all the obstacles LeMond had to overcome, besides the race itself, to win his first Tour de France.
One of the most dramatic parts of the book is when LeMond describes the Tour Director telling LeMond he’s rooting for LeMond to win but to nonetheless “watch out” for people attempting to sabotage LeMond. LeMond became obsessed with watching what he drank and what he ate in fear of being poisoned. That’s absolutely crazy – and believable.
Also intriguing to me was simply reading about the nature of the sport itself. Again, I’ve never been the biggest cycling fan, but I’ve always been amazed by them as athletes. Their devotion to essentially unending pain is astonishing.
Any time I’ve tuned into a Tour they all always look absolutely miserable. I think they’re amazing athletes, able to ride for hours on end at top speed, often straight up the Alps and then back down at breakneck, life-threatening speed. In fact, Hinault’s life- and career-threatening crash earlier in his career was also one of the more captivating parts of the book.
Overall a great book and I highly recommend it.
May 24, 2018
Really bad. Clearly the author wrote the last third of the book first, took it to a publishing house, and they told him to make to 200 pages longer. Those 200 pages really drag. Even the last third was just OK - he never really makes the case for why it was the greatest tour ever - rather just restated the facts as can be found on the Wikipedia article.
July 7, 2014
I wish I could give this book six stars instead of just five. Gripping from page one and seriously satisfying in the end, it's a modern classic in the cycling non-fiction genre, right up there Samuel Abt's masterpieces.
May 31, 2014
Two all time great riders and interesting personalities along with a very well written story. Regardless if you follow cycling or not, very enjoyable.
October 7, 2021
There is something about cycling road-racing which lends itself to great literature. Perhaps it is the sheer length of the Grand Tour events and the consequent changes in fortune that can occur within them. Perhaps it is the complexity of the tactics in an event popularly known as 'chess on wheels'. Perhaps it is the sheer level of suffering which the competitors have to endure - Tyler Hamilton broke his arm in the 2002 Giro d'Italia and still managed to finish second, but had to have eleven teeth capped because of the damage he had done to them gritting them against the pain. Most likely, it is a combination of all of these factors.
The opening page of this book describes Greg LeMond having chronic diarrhoea during a stage of the 1986 Tour de France and ending up relieving himself into a giant box of Bernard Hinault postcards. Having launched itself off the start-ramp in such memorable style the book simply doesn't let up in its sheer brilliance. This is a relentlessly good book which races forward Merckx-style and pulls the reader along in its slipstream.
The story of the 1986 Tour, as told by Richard Moore, begins with the stories of the two main protagonists themselves, LeMond and Hinault, starting with their early lives, moving on through their cycling careers until they eventually became team-mates at La Vie Claire, and telling the story of how LeMond sacrificed his own chances in the 1985 Tour to help Hinault win, with Hinault promising to return the favour in 1986. It hardly constitutes a spoiler to say that that's not how things panned out in 1986.
The book works on so many levels. It is littered with anecdotes - like LeMond's stomach upset - which are both entertaining and meaningful. It is written by someone who knows what they're talking about, the author having been a professional road-racing cyclist himself. The detail is fascinating and the broad picture is enlightening. He manages to portray individuals, team dynamics and peleton culture with equal vividness and clarity. He also manages to interview nearly all the main protagonists in the book in considerable depth: Hinault, LeMond and team coach Paul Kochli. The only main player whom he doesn't meet is team owner Bernard Tapie, who actually died while I was reading the book.
One of the things I really like about the book is that it leaves readers having to make their own minds up as to what even now remains the enduring question about the 1986 Tour: did Hinault try and help LeMond in 1986, albeit in his own peculiar way, or did he break their pact? The only person who really knows the answer to that question is Hinault, whose comments on 1986 have not exactly remained consistent over the years or even consistent with the facts, and who plays his cards very close to his chest anyway.
If I have one minor quibble with the book it is that it could really do with an update. At the time it was written Lance Armstrong hadn't made his admission of drug use and therefore hadn't yet been stripped of his seven yellow jerseys, with LeMond having become something of an outcast in the cycling world because of the accusations he had made about Armstrong. Knowing the truth about Armstrong colours some of the content of the book, and I'd love to know what's happened to LeMond since he was proven right. It just feels wrong to be reading about Armstrong without an enormous caveat being included.
That said, the fact that my only complaint about the book is that I would like there to be more of it tells you all you need to know. I loved it.
The opening page of this book describes Greg LeMond having chronic diarrhoea during a stage of the 1986 Tour de France and ending up relieving himself into a giant box of Bernard Hinault postcards. Having launched itself off the start-ramp in such memorable style the book simply doesn't let up in its sheer brilliance. This is a relentlessly good book which races forward Merckx-style and pulls the reader along in its slipstream.
The story of the 1986 Tour, as told by Richard Moore, begins with the stories of the two main protagonists themselves, LeMond and Hinault, starting with their early lives, moving on through their cycling careers until they eventually became team-mates at La Vie Claire, and telling the story of how LeMond sacrificed his own chances in the 1985 Tour to help Hinault win, with Hinault promising to return the favour in 1986. It hardly constitutes a spoiler to say that that's not how things panned out in 1986.
The book works on so many levels. It is littered with anecdotes - like LeMond's stomach upset - which are both entertaining and meaningful. It is written by someone who knows what they're talking about, the author having been a professional road-racing cyclist himself. The detail is fascinating and the broad picture is enlightening. He manages to portray individuals, team dynamics and peleton culture with equal vividness and clarity. He also manages to interview nearly all the main protagonists in the book in considerable depth: Hinault, LeMond and team coach Paul Kochli. The only main player whom he doesn't meet is team owner Bernard Tapie, who actually died while I was reading the book.
One of the things I really like about the book is that it leaves readers having to make their own minds up as to what even now remains the enduring question about the 1986 Tour: did Hinault try and help LeMond in 1986, albeit in his own peculiar way, or did he break their pact? The only person who really knows the answer to that question is Hinault, whose comments on 1986 have not exactly remained consistent over the years or even consistent with the facts, and who plays his cards very close to his chest anyway.
If I have one minor quibble with the book it is that it could really do with an update. At the time it was written Lance Armstrong hadn't made his admission of drug use and therefore hadn't yet been stripped of his seven yellow jerseys, with LeMond having become something of an outcast in the cycling world because of the accusations he had made about Armstrong. Knowing the truth about Armstrong colours some of the content of the book, and I'd love to know what's happened to LeMond since he was proven right. It just feels wrong to be reading about Armstrong without an enormous caveat being included.
That said, the fact that my only complaint about the book is that I would like there to be more of it tells you all you need to know. I loved it.
November 15, 2022
My fifteenth foray into cycling lit, and it's a doozy. First off, if you read only one cycling bio, this one's got a lot to recommend itself, and if you're the right temperament for being a LeMond fan, this one's it. Yes, I might have been drawn in by its Jesus/Judas narrative because that's what makes drama, but consider an alternate timeline where Judas has already saved the world a whopping five times and Jesus is on his coattails saying "but Judas, you PROMISED A.D. 33 would be my year to win it all!!" Only rather than collecting his silver and going home, Judas says "let's have one for the ages, Jesus. Let's leave no doubt that the best man wins this one."
Cycling has had no shortage of superstars. The movie-star swaggering Fausto Coppi. The cartoonishly talented Eddy Merckx. The tragic forerunner of the super-pharmacists Marco Pantani. And Bernard Hinault was to be the successor to France's other superstar, Jacques Anquetil, and he was, but in astonishing fashion he did so with rugged handsomeness and grit and single-minded will to win, and no shortage of brutish Gallic hard-headedness and controversy.
This book is a two-part biography of Hinault and Greg LeMond with Greg somewhat fascinatingly being the less-interesting of the two, because you see Hinault was shrewder than LeMond, tougher, and had that cycling pedigree whereas LeMond was an upstart American superathlete who had to (necessarily) kind of whine his way into winning position. To compare him to another blond, impatient hero of the era, LeMond is like the Luke Skywalker of the cycling world. Hinault though (much like Luke's dark father) is the more interesting one, and the story certainly wouldn't take place without him. That is to say: you may find that even as Hinault foiled LeMond, he also made him the person he was.
But don't think I don't respect and admire LeMond. It's just that without his foil, and the story behind him, and the rivalry (while teammates) between the two, his rise and eventual duel for greatness would have been a little boring.
Note that the ESPN film based on this book emphasizes LeMond over Hinault. Other vantages differ too, such as their coach Paul Kochli being a bit of a villain in the film. You'll find more nuanced and sympathetic views of Kochli and Hinault in these pages, and you'll be richer for having read their words and the analyses given them. Don't sleep on the film though, 'cause it's very good too.
Other great backstory comes from teammate Andy Hampsten, soigneur Shelly Verses, and other people surrounding the events. For some, the 25-year (now 35-year) gap surrounding the events seems overly long, but for those who lived through those years with little but a few VeloNews articles to illustrate the rise of American cycling, the writing brings the 70s and 80s into the early 21st Century very nicely. Though its 275ish pages seem 100 pages too many sometimes, its color plates (I read a British publication, not sure if others have the great photos) and intensely researched material, along with many many first-hand accounts, make it well worth its while.
Cycling has had no shortage of superstars. The movie-star swaggering Fausto Coppi. The cartoonishly talented Eddy Merckx. The tragic forerunner of the super-pharmacists Marco Pantani. And Bernard Hinault was to be the successor to France's other superstar, Jacques Anquetil, and he was, but in astonishing fashion he did so with rugged handsomeness and grit and single-minded will to win, and no shortage of brutish Gallic hard-headedness and controversy.
This book is a two-part biography of Hinault and Greg LeMond with Greg somewhat fascinatingly being the less-interesting of the two, because you see Hinault was shrewder than LeMond, tougher, and had that cycling pedigree whereas LeMond was an upstart American superathlete who had to (necessarily) kind of whine his way into winning position. To compare him to another blond, impatient hero of the era, LeMond is like the Luke Skywalker of the cycling world. Hinault though (much like Luke's dark father) is the more interesting one, and the story certainly wouldn't take place without him. That is to say: you may find that even as Hinault foiled LeMond, he also made him the person he was.
But don't think I don't respect and admire LeMond. It's just that without his foil, and the story behind him, and the rivalry (while teammates) between the two, his rise and eventual duel for greatness would have been a little boring.
Note that the ESPN film based on this book emphasizes LeMond over Hinault. Other vantages differ too, such as their coach Paul Kochli being a bit of a villain in the film. You'll find more nuanced and sympathetic views of Kochli and Hinault in these pages, and you'll be richer for having read their words and the analyses given them. Don't sleep on the film though, 'cause it's very good too.
Other great backstory comes from teammate Andy Hampsten, soigneur Shelly Verses, and other people surrounding the events. For some, the 25-year (now 35-year) gap surrounding the events seems overly long, but for those who lived through those years with little but a few VeloNews articles to illustrate the rise of American cycling, the writing brings the 70s and 80s into the early 21st Century very nicely. Though its 275ish pages seem 100 pages too many sometimes, its color plates (I read a British publication, not sure if others have the great photos) and intensely researched material, along with many many first-hand accounts, make it well worth its while.
July 8, 2024
I thought I knew a lot about the 1986 Tour de France. I realize now that after reading "Slaying the Badger", I had known very little. "Slaying the Badger" reads like a well-written novel that I could hardly put down, even though I already knew the ending. What I didn’t know was all the background detail, the subplots and the personalities involved in this story. And even though I felt I had a decent feel for the personas of Greg LeMond and Benard Hinault, the full story told by Moore gave me many insights and a much greater understanding of these two extraordinary antagonists.
The title doesn't mean much to people who aren't deep into road racing history and would know that "the badger" is Bernard Hinault, who won the Tour de France five times. The sub-title however makes the subject somewhat clearer: "Greg LeMond, Bernard Hinault and the greatest Tour de France." This book ponders what Hinault meant when he seemed to promise that after winning his fifth Tour in 1985, he would work in 1986 to help LeMond win his first. (A problem with Mr. Hinault is that his statements can often be understood in more than one way.) To do this, the author (who observed the 1985 and 1986 Tours firsthand) interviewed Hinault, LeMond, and others who might provide some insights. He then inserts material from these recent interviews into what is first a review of Hinault and LeMond's history in cycling followed by a day-by-day account of the 1986 Tour.
Hinault comes across as an arrogant, bullying pig. Equally, LeMond comes across as surprisingly weak. I understand that he was being bullied and intimidated by Hinault and everyone was out to get him, but the fact is Hinault rode with much more flair and panache and when it mattered, LeMond faltered or crashed. LeMond, in reality, got lucky that Hinault was a victim of his own hubris. There is never a moment in the 1986 Tour when LeMond stamped his authority and that is a shame.
The overall result is a decent history of the Tour in 1985 and 1986 with some background that reads well. In my opinion, the author has also made strange choices in how he tells the story. The description of the 1986 Tour doesn't start until more than 60 percent of the way into the book. While the background is undoubtedly of relevance, it did leave me feeling that the description of the race itself was greatly rushed. I can't help but wonder how much better the book would have been if each chapter were focused on each stage of the race, with flashbacks to relevant background.
I still thoroughly enjoyed the entire book, which ended all too quickly. I highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in learning about the 1986 Tour in particular, or anyone interested learning more about professional cycling. Both of these guys were fantastic riders, but this story is very much slanted towards Lemond It was still a fun read of a time when the riders weren't so controlled, and doping was a problem.
The title doesn't mean much to people who aren't deep into road racing history and would know that "the badger" is Bernard Hinault, who won the Tour de France five times. The sub-title however makes the subject somewhat clearer: "Greg LeMond, Bernard Hinault and the greatest Tour de France." This book ponders what Hinault meant when he seemed to promise that after winning his fifth Tour in 1985, he would work in 1986 to help LeMond win his first. (A problem with Mr. Hinault is that his statements can often be understood in more than one way.) To do this, the author (who observed the 1985 and 1986 Tours firsthand) interviewed Hinault, LeMond, and others who might provide some insights. He then inserts material from these recent interviews into what is first a review of Hinault and LeMond's history in cycling followed by a day-by-day account of the 1986 Tour.
Hinault comes across as an arrogant, bullying pig. Equally, LeMond comes across as surprisingly weak. I understand that he was being bullied and intimidated by Hinault and everyone was out to get him, but the fact is Hinault rode with much more flair and panache and when it mattered, LeMond faltered or crashed. LeMond, in reality, got lucky that Hinault was a victim of his own hubris. There is never a moment in the 1986 Tour when LeMond stamped his authority and that is a shame.
The overall result is a decent history of the Tour in 1985 and 1986 with some background that reads well. In my opinion, the author has also made strange choices in how he tells the story. The description of the 1986 Tour doesn't start until more than 60 percent of the way into the book. While the background is undoubtedly of relevance, it did leave me feeling that the description of the race itself was greatly rushed. I can't help but wonder how much better the book would have been if each chapter were focused on each stage of the race, with flashbacks to relevant background.
I still thoroughly enjoyed the entire book, which ended all too quickly. I highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in learning about the 1986 Tour in particular, or anyone interested learning more about professional cycling. Both of these guys were fantastic riders, but this story is very much slanted towards Lemond It was still a fun read of a time when the riders weren't so controlled, and doping was a problem.
May 10, 2021
Some sports seem to encourage good writing (cycling, cricket being two good examples) while others are notable only for the pile of ghost-written dross they vomit out for the Christmas market every year (hello soccer, rugby - I'm looking at you!).
Thankfully, Slaying the Badger by Richard Moore falls into the first category. It dates back to 1986 and the epic duel between two La Vie Claire teammates, Bernard Hinault or 'Le Blaireau' (the badger) and Greg LeMond to the top spot on the podium in Paris. Le Blaireau at this stage was in his final season of pro cycling and was one of the all-time greats of the sport, maybe even the greatest, having won Le Tour a record-equalling five times already - including a comeback win the previous year when LeMond sacrificed his own chances to help Hinault to the win, despite arguably being the stronger rider of the two. In return, Hinault promised that he would repay the favour in 1986 by playing his part to help LeMond win the crown.
So far, so uncomplicated....
Moore traces back the lifestory of two compelling and very different characters, examining their very different backgrounds - Hinault the domineering Breton who crushed his rivals through sheer physical force and willpower, and LeMond, the American tyro whose New World attitudes were a study in contrast with many of the European riders who still made up the vast majority of the peloton in those days. Both are fascinating characters and what makes the book such a standout is that they both gave freely of their time to Moore, as well as a wide range of the riders, team managers, sponsors and soigneurs who also played their parts in the wild drama that was to unfold across France in the summer of 1986.
Hinault, without ever quite going to far as to explicitly admit it, reneged on his word and the Tour became something unheard of - a battle between two riders from the same team for the fabled maillot jaune - that stretched across Normandy, Brittany and down into the mountains of the Pyrenees before reaching a shattering crescendo on the mountain tops of the French Alps. Treachery, loyalty, xenophobia, physical and psychological torture...this book has it all in a sporting context. It's very well paced and beautifully written - the story of a race but also more importantly the story of the men who pushed each other to the edge in a sport that is infamous for going beyond the limits of what is acceptable.
No French rider has won the Tour since the great Le Blaireau.
Thankfully, Slaying the Badger by Richard Moore falls into the first category. It dates back to 1986 and the epic duel between two La Vie Claire teammates, Bernard Hinault or 'Le Blaireau' (the badger) and Greg LeMond to the top spot on the podium in Paris. Le Blaireau at this stage was in his final season of pro cycling and was one of the all-time greats of the sport, maybe even the greatest, having won Le Tour a record-equalling five times already - including a comeback win the previous year when LeMond sacrificed his own chances to help Hinault to the win, despite arguably being the stronger rider of the two. In return, Hinault promised that he would repay the favour in 1986 by playing his part to help LeMond win the crown.
So far, so uncomplicated....
Moore traces back the lifestory of two compelling and very different characters, examining their very different backgrounds - Hinault the domineering Breton who crushed his rivals through sheer physical force and willpower, and LeMond, the American tyro whose New World attitudes were a study in contrast with many of the European riders who still made up the vast majority of the peloton in those days. Both are fascinating characters and what makes the book such a standout is that they both gave freely of their time to Moore, as well as a wide range of the riders, team managers, sponsors and soigneurs who also played their parts in the wild drama that was to unfold across France in the summer of 1986.
Hinault, without ever quite going to far as to explicitly admit it, reneged on his word and the Tour became something unheard of - a battle between two riders from the same team for the fabled maillot jaune - that stretched across Normandy, Brittany and down into the mountains of the Pyrenees before reaching a shattering crescendo on the mountain tops of the French Alps. Treachery, loyalty, xenophobia, physical and psychological torture...this book has it all in a sporting context. It's very well paced and beautifully written - the story of a race but also more importantly the story of the men who pushed each other to the edge in a sport that is infamous for going beyond the limits of what is acceptable.
No French rider has won the Tour since the great Le Blaireau.
February 18, 2021
In this year of adjusted schedules, the long delayed Tour de France didn’t feel the same. Everything felt a bit off, from the crowds to the weather to the weariness of the riders. I have enjoyed watching this sports spectacle since I found how entertaining it could be in the post Lance era. It’s become my summer trip via TV. This is to say that I didn’t follow cycling in the year covered in this book. I’ve heard the names, but that’s about it. Having come at this story fresh, I really enjoyed it. The counterpoint of the always worried young American phenom paired up with the grizzled and unpredictable French veteran was very entertaining. You don’t often see this kind of dynamic. The American can’t trust the French guy, yet at points he must. While you can see how a race like the Tour can be as complex in moves as a chess game, this story added a new dynamic – in addition to the inter-team plotting and scheming, here you see some intra-team strategy. The author goes deep on explaining the events and the backgrounds of the decisions made by the riders. LeMond, the American, is presented sharing his inner thoughts on each day and each tactic in the campaign. For Hinault, you really get a couple of different thoughts on his actions and his reasons – what he was probably thinking, and what he says now – often not the same thing. LeMond comes across as unexperienced, which he was, but with the ability to think things through. Hinault comes across as wily.
The author includes details on other parts of the story, including team management and the tour in general. At times the story becomes a bit too repetitive, as the author approaches race tactics from slightly different viewpoints that come to the same conclusion. I found it a minor slog in the middle of the book that dissipated as the racing stories took over. As others have mentioned, the opening story concerning some gastric distress during the race, is unforgettable, for better or worse…
The author includes details on other parts of the story, including team management and the tour in general. At times the story becomes a bit too repetitive, as the author approaches race tactics from slightly different viewpoints that come to the same conclusion. I found it a minor slog in the middle of the book that dissipated as the racing stories took over. As others have mentioned, the opening story concerning some gastric distress during the race, is unforgettable, for better or worse…
July 7, 2025
I am a huge cycling fan and love the Tour de France. I also love the ESPN documentary "Slaying the Badger" for everyone. This book....not as good as the documentary.
The book is not for non cycling fans. It does not explain the ins and outs of the sports for non or causal fans.
Greg LeMond was the first American...first native English speaking cyclist to win the Tour de France in. On his team was Hinault or The Badger, who was in his last year, had won the Tour de France a record tying 5 times. In 1985, the Badger won his 5th tour only with the help of LeMond (arguably, LeMond could have won this tour had he not been "loyal" to Hinault). Supposedly, the Badger promised that if LeMond would help the Badger win in 1985, then the Badger would help Lemond win in 1986, forgoing his chance at a record 6 Tour wins. LeMond takes the deal but it seems as though Hinault breaks this promise during the 1986 tour and the team becomes divided.
This being the greatest Tour ever is arguable, but it was one of the most exciting. Two team mates fighting (yes, a great cyclist is dependent on his team) rivalries vs nationalities, changing of the guard, and two strong but totally different personalities.
To this day, Hinault sticks by the story that he fulfilled his promise to help LeMond in the Tour in 1986 but it also seemed as though he was trying to take the victory for himself. It is so fascinating to see the strategy involved in a 3 week race across France and the personal reasons for the actions. Though the book was a bit "fast" at times, did not capture the intensity of the moment, nor really described cycling well, Moore did capture LeMond, Hinault, the teammates, and the management very well.
The book is not for non cycling fans. It does not explain the ins and outs of the sports for non or causal fans.
Greg LeMond was the first American...first native English speaking cyclist to win the Tour de France in. On his team was Hinault or The Badger, who was in his last year, had won the Tour de France a record tying 5 times. In 1985, the Badger won his 5th tour only with the help of LeMond (arguably, LeMond could have won this tour had he not been "loyal" to Hinault). Supposedly, the Badger promised that if LeMond would help the Badger win in 1985, then the Badger would help Lemond win in 1986, forgoing his chance at a record 6 Tour wins. LeMond takes the deal but it seems as though Hinault breaks this promise during the 1986 tour and the team becomes divided.
This being the greatest Tour ever is arguable, but it was one of the most exciting. Two team mates fighting (yes, a great cyclist is dependent on his team) rivalries vs nationalities, changing of the guard, and two strong but totally different personalities.
To this day, Hinault sticks by the story that he fulfilled his promise to help LeMond in the Tour in 1986 but it also seemed as though he was trying to take the victory for himself. It is so fascinating to see the strategy involved in a 3 week race across France and the personal reasons for the actions. Though the book was a bit "fast" at times, did not capture the intensity of the moment, nor really described cycling well, Moore did capture LeMond, Hinault, the teammates, and the management very well.
October 1, 2024
Came across this book after watching the excellent ESPN 30-for-30 documentary by the same name, and as you might expect they certainly echo each other in some aspects, primarily in their narrative of thw 1986 tour and the pact made and broken by Hinault to help Lemond.
What I liked most about this book was the degree to which it fleshed out the primary actors in the drama, Hinault and Lemond of course, but Team Director Kochli, owner Tapie, La Vie Clair teammates, rivals from other teams, and more all receive attention. It's all the more helpful when Lemond and Hinault, and often others, differ so widely on their interpretations of what happened in the 86 Tour.
While it is hard to not come away from this without seeing Hinault and his actions as duplitious and devious, the author does well to illustrate the massive amount pressure on the Badger in France to go and try for a 6th Tour, all the way up to the President of his home country. With Hinnault's own team owner, the French sporting press, fans, and doubtlessly his own competitive instincts rebelling against the idea of working as a mere domestique for Lemond, it is easy to understand why Hinault did what he did.
Overall, I think this is a must have for any fan of the Tour de France or cycling in general.
What I liked most about this book was the degree to which it fleshed out the primary actors in the drama, Hinault and Lemond of course, but Team Director Kochli, owner Tapie, La Vie Clair teammates, rivals from other teams, and more all receive attention. It's all the more helpful when Lemond and Hinault, and often others, differ so widely on their interpretations of what happened in the 86 Tour.
While it is hard to not come away from this without seeing Hinault and his actions as duplitious and devious, the author does well to illustrate the massive amount pressure on the Badger in France to go and try for a 6th Tour, all the way up to the President of his home country. With Hinnault's own team owner, the French sporting press, fans, and doubtlessly his own competitive instincts rebelling against the idea of working as a mere domestique for Lemond, it is easy to understand why Hinault did what he did.
Overall, I think this is a must have for any fan of the Tour de France or cycling in general.
November 10, 2017
This book explores the world of professional cycling through the lives of two great competitors and their rivalry during the 1986 Tour de France. The French Bernard Hinault was a grizzled veteran and winner of a record-tying five Tours de France. Greg LeMond was a young, free-spirited American with seemingly limitless potential. What makes their rivalry even more compelling is that they were on the same team. The resulting clash made that Tour de France arguably the greatest one ever. And, it made this book a joy to read. As such, it was a marked contrast to another cycling book about a five-time Tour winner, "Sex, Lies, and Handlebar Tape" (see my critique in my last set of book reviews). Moore does a great job of giving glimpses into the lives and motivations of LeMond and Hinault, rather than just recounting the events. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in cycling or understanding what drives competitive athletes. The book is rewarding and well worth the time to read it.
January 20, 2019
This was a thoroughly researched, well-written book about one of the greatest cycling rivalries of the twentieth century. The strongest section is the final third of the book covering the 1985 and 1986 Tours de France and the escalating conflict between veteran French champion Bernard Hinault and American upstart Greg LeMond. Readers interested in the inner world of professional cycling prior to the doping scandals that eviscerated the sport in the 2000s will enjoy the book. The author uses the contrast between Hinault’s domineering and earthy personality and LeMond’s more likable, laid back exterior as an insight into their distinct styles of racing. At the heart of the book is the question of whether Hinault betrayed LeMond after promising to help him win the 1986 Tour after LeMond sacrificed himself to secure Hinault secure the victory the previous year. I don’t think the book solves this mystery, but readers will enjoy the many twists and turns that result from the author’s search for an answer.
February 18, 2017
Very well written account of the 1996 tour bought to life by fresh, revealing and current interviews with many of the protagonists – detailed interviews with Le Mond & Hinault & Koechli (who clearly saw the race as the ultimate application of his tactics of making the race and taking it to the opposition) as well as interviews with Guimard, Hampsten, Anderson, Bauer, Shelley Verses, the second LVC Director Sportif, French and American journalists (almost all of whom side with Le Mond and believe that Hinault tried everything he could to win the race – a position the author pretty well reaches). The book nevertheless presents a balanced account of the race – perhaps not fully reflecting the irony that even 15 years on, Le Mond the winner is still tortured by the race whereas Hinault the loser finds it amusing.
July 7, 2019
"slaying"??? that's not really accurate. It's an eye-catching title. What the book describes has nothing to do with slaying. It's more about toxic drama inside the La Vie Claire team.
The writing is mediocre overall. It's a long version of a sport beat article. While a short text that is hosted on website that might be ok, it doesn't really work well on a book. It's rather lazy, and it gets tiring. Furthermore, the writer does not analyze deep enough the conflict despite that he is trying. It is not because of the bad writing but mostly because his interviewing skills (weak).
Still, if you don't know a lot about the tour, and especially the tour in the 80s, the books has a good overview.
The writing is mediocre overall. It's a long version of a sport beat article. While a short text that is hosted on website that might be ok, it doesn't really work well on a book. It's rather lazy, and it gets tiring. Furthermore, the writer does not analyze deep enough the conflict despite that he is trying. It is not because of the bad writing but mostly because his interviewing skills (weak).
Still, if you don't know a lot about the tour, and especially the tour in the 80s, the books has a good overview.
August 19, 2025
Richard Moore has a gift for turning cycling rivalries into page-turning human drama. Slaying the Badger isn’t just about Hinault and LeMond, it’s about grit, ego, loyalty, and betrayal all wrapped up in the toughest race on earth.
What I loved most is how deeply researched it is, but never dry, Moore gives every character a voice, from legends to teammates in the shadows, and it feels like you’re right there on the climbs and in the tense team meetings.
Even if you’re not a hardcore cycling fan, this book pulls you in because it’s really a story about ambition, trust, and what it costs to win. It deserves way more visibility and recognition than it currently has.
Highly recommended, for sports fans, history buffs, and anyone who loves a good rivalry told with energy and insight.
What I loved most is how deeply researched it is, but never dry, Moore gives every character a voice, from legends to teammates in the shadows, and it feels like you’re right there on the climbs and in the tense team meetings.
Even if you’re not a hardcore cycling fan, this book pulls you in because it’s really a story about ambition, trust, and what it costs to win. It deserves way more visibility and recognition than it currently has.
Highly recommended, for sports fans, history buffs, and anyone who loves a good rivalry told with energy and insight.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews