Tour de France  —  Soap Opera of the 1980's:
This is a brief history of epic races in 1985-86 & 1989, with
the top riders – Hinault, Fignon, Lemond – plus Delgado.

Although the page isn't "brief" the history is incomplete.  Although in September 2021 this page was expanded and revised – with more words (plus links to videos & pages), especially about the most exciting races in 1985-86 and 1989 – it still doesn't describe a fraction of the many amazing things that happened during the 1980s in this epic race (in some ways the toughest competition that exists) because the full stories — with their complexities (in the many interpersonal relationships, personal motivations, athletic performances, etc) — are much more fascinating-and-dramatic than I've been able to describe here.  But hopefully this page – even though it's incomplete, with rough edges – will give you a feeling for the drama, will stimulate your imagination about “what really happened” if we knew the full stories.  But... we never will know all of the history.

some history of the Tour de France:  From its beginning in 1903 until 1982, two riders — Jacques Anquetil (1957, 1961-64) and Eddy Merckx (1969-72, 1974) — had won 5 titles. 

In 1982, Bernard Hinault won his 4th title.  He had been dominant (winning 4 of 5 years, 78-82, losing only in 80 due to injury) so could anything prevent him from winning a 5th in 1983?  And maybe more?  Yes.  His 5th title was delayed and became difficult, due to his own injuries (in 83) and two young riders, Laurent Fignon (who won 83-84) and Greg LeMond (who rode well in 85-86).  Things became more complicated – contributing to the drama – because two of the top riders (Hinault & LeMond) were on the same team in 85-86.

Here is a “big picture” overview of Hinault-Fignon-LeMond (H-F-L):
    83, injury for Hinault, and Fignon won in his 1st TdF,
    84 - Fignon won again, and (soon to become important) LeMond was quickly becoming very strong,
    85 - Fignon was injured & out, but LeMond is strong enough to challenge;  Hinault dominated early but was injured in a crash (that was the fault of others);  then L could have won, but he was on the same team as H, so (to let H win his 5th) their team gave L an order – “don't try to win” – and he finished second, with H winning his 5th title,
    86 - after L's help in 85, H promised to help L win in 86, but... did he help L, or try to win himself?   {was 86 the most exciting & dramatic in TdF history?  yes, IMO}
    89 - the race between Lemond and Fignon (each having comebacks from major injuries) produced an exciting ending, with the closest finish in TdF history.

You also can see an overview in an end-of-page TABLE showing results of 4 riders, H F L plus Pedro Delgado.

During the 1980's we saw fascinating interactions between three top riders (Bernard Hinault, Greg Le Mond, Laurent Fignon) who each won the race two or more times, plus Pedro Delgado & others.

   1986
    I think this was the most dramatic Tour in history, when all things are considered.  {iou - later, I'll continue expanding-and-revising this section.}
    In 1985-1986 Hinault and LeMond traded wins — maybe literally? — when in both years they were teammates.  How did 1985 affect 1986?  In 1985, Hinault dominated the race, building a lead of 3:32 over LeMond, but (due to other riders) he crashed and was injured on Stage 14 (of 22), and within a few days "congestion in his broken nose had led to bronchitis for Hinault, severely impacting his ability to perform."  He bravely continued, but during Stage 17 (and later) the team ordered Lemond to “not try to win” so Hinault would win.  LeMond cooperated, and helped Hinault win in 1985.  Therefore, Hinault publicly promised to help Lemond win in 1986.*  But maybe... he never intended to actually do this?  or he changed his mind in 1986, either before the Tour or during it?
    In 1986, maybe Hinault tried to win for himself, in a way that would be extremely dominant.  Or maybe he tried to be a "heroic loser" who was keeping his promise, but doing this in a very dramatic way.*  Which "maybe" actually happened?  The answer remains a mystery.  Why?  Because during the overall tour in two strategically-crucial days in the mountains Hinault "won the tour" on Day 1, and "gave it away" (maybe intentionally, or maybe not) on Day 2.  How?  Due largely to being on the same team — and due to Hinault causing a situation similar to 1985, with LeMond artificially prevented (due to "unwritten rules" of team loyalty, and by team orders) from chasing after him — Hinault finished 4:37 ahead of LeMond the first day (Stage 12) and built his overall lead to 5:17, which may have been more than enough to insure the overall victory for himself, but...  during the second day (Stage 13) he tried to extend his lead even more, and for awhile he did (reaching the top of a mountain peak 2 minutes before LeMond) but then Hinault became tired, and LeMond passed him, finishing 4:39 ahead of him for the day, leaving LeMond only 40 seconds behind Hinault overall.  A few days later, again in mountains (first they rode Pyrenees, then Alps), LeMond finished far ahead of Hinault, moving into the overall lead by 2:47.
    a mystery:  So... during Day 2 when Hinault extended his already-large lead (of 5:17) by another 2 minutes, before tiring, was he trying to win (despite a promise he may have made, but maybe didn't mean at the time, or later changed his mind?) because he "got greedy" during the second day, wanting to not just win the TdF but also to show everyone (LeMond & others) that his win was a total domination?  Or did he decide that Day 2 was an opportunity to appear heroic – to be a grand champion who wanted to "go for it" with gusto, to not just settle back and ride safely, merely protecting his large lead of 5:17 – while he actually was planning to lose time during the second day, so he could keep his promise, yet do it with style and appear to be a heroic loser? (at least he would be a hero in the eyes of his many French fans, although a jerk in the eyes of many others – yes, it's complicated)   During Day 2, was he trying to "win with dominance" or "lose with heroic style"?  Nobody knows for sure.
    was Hinault trying to win?  regarding motivations, winning his 5th title in 1985 should have been extremely important for Hinault because it "put his name into the record book" but, by contrast, in 1986 a 6th title would only have "taken two names out of the record book" so winning the 6th should have been (I think) much less important for Hinault (but did he think this?), because IMO sometimes a "tie" is ok, or second place is ok.    /    I think Hinault should not have "tried so hard to win in the ways he tried" because, IMO, if Hinault had won it by "playing it safe" on Day 2 and he had won his 6th, I don't think he would have won it honorably, because his time-gain of 4:37 during Day 1 was possible due to being on the same team with LeMond, who wasn't allowed (by his team) to compete fairly (and Hinault knew this would happen) because the team wouldn't let LeMond exert all-out effort in chasing, so he was forced to passively watch the lead increase to 4:37.  Most experts think LeMond would have easily won 1986 if he had not been on the same team with Hinault – e.g. LeMond says so in this video – but it became a tense "soap opera" (with many complexities beyond just racing their bicycles) because they were on the same team.
    iou – Later I'll do more research, to see what experts say about the mystery.  Much has been written about this – in Slaying the Badger (an epic book about this epic race), plus documentaries by ESPN and others.  Here are a few ideas:
    LA Times (in late-July 1986, shortly after the race was over) said "It is a matter of interpretation whether Hinault kept his promise."  Nicolas (in a 2013 post for the "GregLeMondFans" blog) shares excellent insights followed by three fascinating comments by others.  To the present, the questions have not been answered, the controversy continues.  In 2016, RoadCyclingUK.com analyzes L'Alpe d'Huez and the overall tour.  In 2020, a pro-LeMond description of the race.    {iou - later I'll explore this links-page and others}
    Wikipedia says "Hinault reiterated his promise to work for LeMond the following year several times during the final part of the 1985 Tour.  Following the time trial on the penultimate day, he publicly stated in an interview with French cycling magazine Miroir du Cyclisme: 'I'll stir things up to help Greg win, and I'll have fun doing it.  That's a promise.' [italics added by me]  On the victory podium in Paris, he leaned over to LeMond, telling him: 'Next year, it's you', repeating the pledge again during the celebration dinner of La Vie Claire that same evening."   and   "LeMond's first Tour victory the following year did not come as easily as these pledges and jokes indicated.  Hinault attacked several times during the 1986 Tour de France, only conceding defeat after the last time trial.  LeMond was frustrated with the apparent unwillingness by Hinault to honour the deal, saying: 'He made promises to me he never intended to keep.  He made them just to relieve the pressure on himself.' "
    In 1986 and continuing in later years, Hinault claimed that he really was trying to help LeMond win.  But has he ever explained "how" he was doing this?  Did he intentionally "give it away" on Day 2, but in a disguised way by using a heroic "going for the gusto" strategy that made the giveaway not-obvious?  e.g. a giveaway would have been obvious if Hinault had intentionally lagged behind by 4:39, instead of nobly becoming tired for the obvious reason of riding extremely hard for 1 1/2 days, but not being able to finish strong in the last 1/2 of the second day.  And of course an obvious giveaway by "lagging behind" would have been condescensing to LeMond, producing a lose-lose-lose for both riders (especially LeMond) and for fans of the sport who would question the integrity of Hinault and the worthiness of LeMond's victory.  And after Stage 13 (that I'm calling Day 2) Hinault continued his aggressive riding, as in the most difficult day of the Tour, Stage 18.    /    Near the end of his post, Nicolas says "maybe, in a way, Hinault was right;  he wanted Greg LeMond to earn the Tour, by his own merits;  too bad he [Hinault] made it look different" and then concludes with a useful principle for life: "Communicate. Talk to each other. It will spare you lots of trouble."
    a confession of ignorance:  I watched the end of 1985 and thought "I should watch it next year."  But during the first week in 1986, I looked at overall standings in the newspaper, didn't see either Hinault or LeMond, and concluded "I thought this would be interesting, but evidently not."  This conclusion was wrong, due to my ignorant lack of experience, because I had never followed a complete TdF, not even in 1985 when I just watched the CBS summary of the final week.  I didn't realize that almost every year it was like this;  the main contenders don't become time-leaders until later, after the first long Time Trial, because typically the big time-changes occur in time trials and during two sets of mountain stages, in the Pyrenees & Alps.  Due to my naive ignorance (about timings of the irrelevant stages & important stages) I didn't watch the 1986 TdF on TV, didn't realize until later that "oops, this really was interesting – in fact when all things are considered, it was the most dramatic TdF ever! – and I should have been watching the tv-highlights every Sunday during the race."

    1989
    {iou - later, I'll write an introductory overview for this.}
    pages – Wikipedia has an introduction with a race-overview;  the lead went back & forth, with Fignon winning it back by gaining 1:19 (1 minute, 19 seconds) on LeMond in Stage 17 (L'Alpe d'Huez) plus 0:24 more the next day, giving him an apparently-insurmountable lead of 50 seconds going into Stage 20, a short Individual Time Trial (not long enough for LeMond to gain 50 seconds, most people thought) ending in Paris, but LeMond won the stage by 58 seconds, giving him the overall lead by 8 seconds, in the closest-ever finish.
    videos – for the overall race, three documentaries, long (1:31:53) - long official (1:25:54) - shorter (9:38) but without the final stage;   the final day, short (2:23 of action, 4:29 total) and longer (total time is xxxx) in 5 parts, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 .
    The overall lead went back & forth, with L (for 5 days), F (5 days), L (2 days), F (4 days), L (for 1 day, the most important day).  And in another aspect of this fascinating year, Pedro Delgado (the winner in 1988) strangely lost more than 7 minutes during the first two days but finished only 3:34 behind LeMond (gaining almost 4 minutes) so with a better start he would have been a contender;  but... if Delgado had been closer to them, the leaders (Fignon & Lemond) would have "protected themselves against him" more effecctively, and his time gains would have been much smaller;  but... if he had been closer, Delgado might have been more motivated to ride harder, producing larger time gains.  And... we'll never know the "alternative history" of what might have happened if Delgado's first two days had been better, more normal, IF he had done what he was expected to do, what he was capable of doing.
    aerodynamics -- LeMond gained big advantages* due to his use of aerodynamic handle bars and helmet (these were available to Fignon but he refused both, and didn't even use a "biking cap" to keep his ponytail from flapping in the wind to produce extra air-drag);  Fignon used a disk wheel on the back and front (thus less drag, but less stability so Fignon had to "fight" to keep the bike ok) while LeMond only used a disk wheel on the back.   {more & more}    /    * But I'm confused by this paragraph: "Later, the American revealed that he did not get as much advantage from his equipment as was first thought. “We did wind-tunnel tests after the Tour,” he said, “and it turned out that my natural position was already so aerodynamic that the bars only made up about eight seconds … and the helmet, because it had a lot of room inside that created a sort of parachute drag, cost me about 12 seconds.”  I'm confused because the article doesn't explain that despite this self-reporting by Greg, most experts have concluded that his aerodynamic advantages gave him large time benefits, certainly more than his victory margin of 8 seconds.

    1978-1991
    The page-ending table shows relationships between three key riders (Hinault & Fignon & LeMond) plus Delgado.   Notice that...  Hinault was dominant early;   then Fignon (with a 10:32 margin of victory in 1984) but he was injured from 1985 thru 1988;   as described earlier, in 1985/1986 Hinault and LeMond traded wins, maybe literally because both years they were teammates, and the team ordered Lemond to “not try to win” in 1985, so Hinault promised (but did he mean it?) to help Lemond win in 1986;  LeMond did win, then Hinault retired and LeMond was blasted with accidental “friendly fire” from a shotgun;   and 1989 became the closest race in TdF history, when Fignon (finally healthy again) entered the final day with a 50 second lead but lost the race to LeMond by only 8 seconds, partly because he refused to wear a modern aerodynamic helmet, instead he decided to let his pony-tail flap in the wind! {and he didn't use aero-handlebars, but LeMond did – without these self-imposed disadvantages, Fignon would have won}

Recently (Sep 18, 2021) I found another history with a "soap opera" theme, in Rivals: The story of Hinault, Fingon, and Lemond – Part 1 & Part 2 with Freebooter Racing saying "this tour [1985] would write the ultimate drama, something that would put 'Days of Our Lives' to shame."   /   comment: They tell the stories in fascinating ways, with skillful writing, but it's difficult to understand because the narrator's voice is too quiet (compared with the loud music) and is not enunciated clearly;  the video needs better sound engineering, so the quality of their sound will match the quality of their story.

In addition to the main three riders (H F L), there are may other riders with fascinating stories.  For example,
    Pedro Delgado in 1989, and earlier.  He was impressive winning the 1988 Tour – although maybe he was using steroids but maybe not* – and in a TV broadcast of the first stage in 1989 (an Individual Time Trial) the announcer said (and many people thought) that "to win, all he had to do was show up" but... the first day he didn't show up on time (so he lost 2:40 for this delay, plus another :08 in the race, putting him 2:48 behind Fignon & LeMond) before losing even more time the next day in the Team Time Trial, when he lagged behind his team and lost another 4:32 to Fignon;  so after two days, Delgado was in last place overall, more than 7 minutes behind Fignon.  And during the second-day TTT, Fignon's team beat LeMond's team by 51 seconds, which was a large amount in this close race where the final difference was only 8 seconds.    {Delgado also had interesting adventures in earlier years, riding impressively but (for various reasons) never winning, and (iou) eventually I'll describe some of them here.}   {more about doping by Delgado & others}
    * "That victory [in 1988], though, was clouded when Delgado delivered a 'false' positive for probenecid," but in a 2010 interview Pedro defended the integrity of his victory by saying "I took probenecid just after that Alpe d’Huez stage.  We used it to assist draining from the kidneys.  It was also used to mask anabolic steroids, but if I’d wanted to hide something in that way I would have had to have used it every day and it only appeared on that one.  Besides, the product wasn’t banned by the UCI, although it was by the International Olympic Committee.  But we didn’t have it on our banned list."   {italics added by me}

Teammates:  From 1981 to 1983, all three riders (Hinault, Fignon, LeMond) were on the same team, Renault.  Due to disagreements with the team's director, in 1984 Hinault left Renault for La Vie Claire, and in 1985 Renault (with Hinault's urging) asked LeMond to sign with them.  There were no major difficulties in 81-82-83 when 3 top riders (H F L) were on the same team, or in 84 (with F L together) but there was HUGE drama in 85-86 for the team that had both Hinault and LeMond.

Later (iou) there will be other stories about these riders and others.    {Phil Liggett-isms}

Drugs?  Although there was some “doping” — maybe by Delgado, and self-admittedly by Fignon (in minor ways) with cortisone and also amphetamines but without the use of super-charging EPO — most experts are confident that until the early 1990s there was very little use of highly effective Performance-Enhancing Drugs like EPO.  With good reason, Hinault and Lemond are widely considered to have been “clean” riders throughout their careers.    /    Later, TdF in 2006 — ending with The Mystery of Floyd Landis (who did what? or didn't?) — was the last TdF I watched with pleasure as a “true fan” before I learned enough to become disillusioned by the widespread use of drugs in world-class cycling.
  

this page is http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/teach/tdf-1980s.htm