In the world of grand tours, the line between teammate and rival can blur quickly. Two of the most storied and tense leadership battles (the Hinault–LeMond saga during the Tour de France editions 1985 and 1986 and the Roche–Visentini conflict at the Giro d’Italia 1987) offer strikingly similar insights into what happens when ambition, pressure, and loyalty clash within a single team.
Though separated by time, terrain, and nationality, both rivalries share a core narrative structure—a pattern that reveals something fundamental about the nature of competitive
cycling.
Two leaders, one team
In both cases, the teams began their grand tours with two potential leaders, an established champion and an emerging or in-form contender. Bernard Hinault was the national icon, hunting a fifth Tour win in 1985, and chasing the impossible, the sixth in next year; Roberto Visentini, the defending Giro champion after his overall victory in 1986, and the pride of Italian cycling. Both were paired with younger riders showing superior form, Greg LeMond and Stephen Roche, respectively, who had the strength to lead but were expected to defer.
The setup seemed manageable on paper. In reality, it created internal tension from day one.
The outsider vs. the home favorite
One of the most emotionally charged elements in both rivalries was
the contrast between the foreign challenger and the national hero.
In both cases, the rider who eventually won had to overcome not only his teammate, but also the cultural weight of riding against the expectations of the host country.
Greg LeMond was an American in a French team, trying to win France’s most sacred sporting event. Bernard Hinault was not just any teammate. He was the face of French cycling, a national icon, and a four-time Tour winner. Many French fans and media viewed LeMond’s rise with skepticism, if not hostility. To them, LeMond was still a guest in a French team, someone who had earned his place but not the right to unseat “Le Blaireau” as leader. When Hinault attacked during Tour de France 1986, despite pledging support to LeMond, some fans saw it not as betrayal, but as noble defiance.
The situation was even more volatile during Giro d’Italia 1987. Stephen Roche was Irish, riding for Carrera, an Italian team with an Italian sponsor and deep ties to Italian cycling culture. His co-leader, Roberto Visentini, was the reigning Giro champion, fluent in the team’s language, and groomed for glory. When Roche took back the pink jersey by attacking Visentini on Stage 15, it was perceived by many Italians not as tactical brilliance, but as an act of treachery. Fans along the roadside booed Roche, threw insults, and at times even tried to interfere with his progress. Some of his own teammates stopped supporting him, siding with Visentini either out of loyalty or national pride.
In both cases, the outsider had to ride through more than just mountains and time trials. They rode through a wall of cultural resistance, where every pedal stroke was seen as a challenge to the team hierarchy, national identity, and even the unwritten rules of respect. Their victories were not just personal milestones, they were cultural upsets.
Fractured promises and changing roles
Both stories feature ambiguous or shifting team agreements. LeMond was told he would get his chance in 1986 after helping Hinault win in 1985—but Hinault’s actions in the race seemed to contradict that. Roche entered the Giro with an open competition agreement, but once Visentini took pink, the expectation quickly shifted: Roche should fall in line.
In both cases, the so-called co-leadership gave way to a power struggle, where words and roles no longer aligned with
actions.
Internal isolation and public backlash
When LeMond and Roche challenged their teammates’ authority, they faced backlash from within their own teams and from the public. Roche was booed openly by Italian fans after attacking Visentini. LeMond, especially in 1986, felt undermined by teammates still loyal to Hinault, and had to navigate the Tour under intense psychological strain.
Victory in the face of pressure
Most crucially, both LeMond and Roche prevailed under immense internal and external pressure. They didn’t just defeat their rivals—they succeeded without full team support, while being doubted, second-guessed, and often resented.