Armstrong will earn his 66th yellow jersey Sunday and, on this Tour, overtook five-time champion Miguel Indurain of Spain, who won 60, for third place in the standings. Merckx won 96, Hinault 78.

Armstrong's single-minded focus on the Tour, his attention to detail, his use of new technologies to save seconds and his ability to recruit, keep and motivate teammates have raised the bar for how to win the three-week cycling marathon.

"It's an improvement in the method of approaching the Tour de France -- more professional, more rigorous, more methodical," race director Jean-Marie Leblanc said. "In a word, more American."

What an outstanding comment to hear from a Frenchman/woman when America bashing is so prevelant in the world.

When politics are set aside, it is the measure of the man/woman that counts, whether winning a race or recognizing an outstanding effort.
Cheers!

I am almost ashamed to admit that until Lance Armstrong began dominating the Tour de France I paid no attention to it whatsoever. I vaguely remember Greg LeMonde winning 5 times, but until Armstrong's battle with cancer was publicized I ignored it. I am glad to see that simple human acheivement still trancends politics, at least in some circumstances.
Regards, (and Vive le France!), Vince

What is often missed by so many angry Americans is; if there had been no France on our side during the revolutionary war, there would be no "United States of America" today!

Bountyhunter

Bountyhunter--

You are without question correct: The USA would not exist were it not for the friendship of France when we desperately needed it.

However, at the risk of being branded jingoistic, that debt was both acknowledged, then repaid in full, when Pershing announced, "Lafayette, we are here!" And then again, twenty-some-odd years later.

David

David:

Now we come to the "Chicken and the egg" theory.

If France had not helped us succeed, they might have spent their resources to become the dominant super power in the world. Yes, we would still be a British colony, but would never have succeeded in the way we did as a free nation. France may have ended up the dominant power in Europe, and the nazis might never have attained the power to allow a hitler to come to pass.

Yes, I agree we helped defeat the nazis and free France, but as the "Chicken and the egg" argument goes, you can continue this discussion until some one finally finds the root number of "pi", and even then it would never end.

Bountyhunter

Sounded like David agreed with you BH.
Then stated that we had repaid France, two fold.
No chicken or egg theory implied.

Debt paid in full, WITH INTEREST, let's get on with the present. For all the Patton admirers out there, "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." It's time to start putting the rabid dogs down.

My first reply got lost. I'm sorry.

There is no way that the United States would have achieved it's freedom from Great Britain in 1776-1781 without French help. But by the same token, there is no way the Brits could have held on to America as a colony much past the Napoleonic wars. There would have been an independant America no later than 1805 anyway.
That being said, we owe France because they intervened at a time when Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and about 3 dozen other assorted geniuses were directing the course of human events. I think it is a total freak accident of history that so many capable men came together at such a time--and the French were in a position to help and they did. Otherwise who knows? Maybe we would have been the world's first totalitarian dictatorship.
Maybe the American Republic as it is was meant to be. But I think that an American Republic founded in 1805 on the principles of Napoleon would have led to a very different place than the America I love today that was founded on the principles of Washington and Madison.
Regards, Vince

Bountyhunter?

Historian A.J.P Taylor summed it up best:

?Historians can sometimes explain, or at any rate discuss, the immediate causes of some great event. Beyond that, they can do little more than arrive at the platitude that every generation is, to some extent, responsible for what happens afterwards. In this way, we can finally reach the preposterous conclusion that the ancient Romans were responsible for the First World War, when they failed to civilize the Germans. This is sometimes called learning from history.?

I?ll take the chicken fried, and the eggs scrambled, please. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

David

My pharmacist tells me most of the early major pharmacutical discoveries were made by Germans, and that he had to learn many of the formulas in German before becoming licensed.

Advanced rocketry was a result of German engineers, many of whom were captured by the Allies during WWII and were shielded by their captors from paying the price for what we considered "War Crimes".

If the Romans had "civilized" the Germans, the spark and sometimes madness that drives progress would probably have resulted in fewer miracle drugs, slower airplanes, and less efficient ways to deliver death from above.

Now, what came first, the chicken or the egg? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />