7-24-89 Monday. I never dreamed that he could do it, but he did. Greg LeMond has won the 1989 Tour de France. I found out about it last night, when I called USA Today’s sportsline, but I didn’t know the details of the race until this morning. Going into yesterday’s final stage, a fifteen-mile time trial from Versailles to Paris, LeMond trailed tour leader Laurent Fignon by fifty seconds. Hardly anyone thought that LeMond could make up the difference in such a short stage, even though he has performed superbly in time trials thus far (winning one of them). LeMond rode next to last, before Fignon. Based on my calculations, he averaged an unbelievable 33.39 miles per hour for the fifteen miles. Since Fignon left exactly two minutes after LeMond, there wasn’t time for LeMond to catch his breath before watching Fignon sprint toward the finish near the Arc de Triomphe. The Frenchman fell short by eight seconds. Fignon needed to finish within fifty seconds of LeMond, but crossed the line fifty-eight seconds slower. I wish I could have seen this dramatic ending. According to newspaper reports, LeMond thrust his fist into the air repeatedly, while Fignon, the stoic Frenchman, went pale and fell to the ground in tears. I’m at once elated and saddened—elated for LeMond, who worked so hard to come back from a shooting injury, but saddened that Fignon should lose the race by so little. Eight seconds. These titans rode 2002.94 miles in eighty-seven hours, thirty-eight minutes, thirty-five seconds, and only eight seconds divided them at the end. It’s too bad that there can be only one winner.
The interesting thing about this year’s tour is that only four riders wore the yellow jersey, and one of them (Erik Breukink of Belgium) wore it for only a day, after winning the tour’s short prologue. Acacio da Silva of Portugal held the lead for four days, then LeMond for five, then Fignon for five, then LeMond again for two, then Fignon again for four, and finally LeMond—when it mattered most. Fignon wore the yellow jersey nine times and LeMond eight. If I had to explain LeMond’s success, I would cite the time trials. In fact, LeMond took the lead in the tour three times—each time following a time trial. All told, he won three stages of the tour (to Fignon’s one). Fignon did well in the mountain stages, but LeMond stayed close enough to him to make yesterday’s concluding stage meaningful and a victory possible. I understand, by the way, that Saturday, Fignon told reporters that LeMond could not beat him. He said that his mind and legs were too strong. I guess he underestimated LeMond’s ability and determination. When I think about what happened in Paris yesterday, I shiver with excitement. Imagine: It’s the oldest and greatest bike race in the world. You’ve won it before, but shortly thereafter suffered a near-fatal injury that prevented you from riding in the tour the next two years. Your chief rival is a two-time tour winner [1983 and 1984], a seasoned and wily veteran. You’re fifty seconds behind him with only fifteen miles to go. As you sprint for the finish line, hoping against hope that your best will be good enough, you hear half a million spectators screaming encouragement. The image is staggering. I salute you, Greg! Congratulations! (Even thirty-two year olds have heroes.) [So do 52-year olds. My new hero is Lance Armstrong, who won seven consecutive Tours between 1999 and 2005. He lies third overall in this year’s Tour, having come out of retirement less than a year ago.]
There is talk in some quarters (mostly among television journalists) of televising United States Supreme Court proceedings. Some of the justices favor it, while others have as yet expressed no view. I, for one, think that television cameras should stay out of the courtroom. Out! For one thing, television trivializes everything that it touches. I know that the Court’s deliberations would turn into media circuses and that people would misunderstand what is going on. That would replace ignorance with misunderstanding. Second, what is there to show? The Court’s work consists primarily in legal research and writing. The individual justices decide for themselves who should prevail in each case, then rationalize their decisions in the form of written opinions. To be sure, there are oral arguments before the bench during each judicial term, but this is largely a formality. I doubt that any justice changes his or her mind about a case on the basis of an oral argument. So television cameras and reporters should stay the hell out of the Supreme Court. The Court’s legitimacy, such as it is, stems from its intellectual respectability, and that would be undermined by televised proceedings. The justices are thinkers and theorists, not actors on a stage. Stay out, I say!
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 