I got a chance to watch the video on Saturday, while relegated to the trainer by bad weather. I thought that it was interesting. It clearly reflects LeMond's point of view, but it was made for an American audience. The interview with Hinault was fascinating. He was obviously enjoying the cat and mouse game of plausible deniability with the reporter. You could see it in his eyes. Koechli was being a typical double-minded Swiss. My sense was that his thinking may have been that LeMond would answer Hinault's attacks right away, and they would work together to break Zimmerman, and possibly give Hampsten a chance to sneak onto the podium for a La Vie Claire sweep. His primary loyalty seemed to be with LVC. Telling Hampsten that he was free to go for the win seemed to reflect that.
Other riders of the time echoed Koechli's criticism of LeMond for not attacking, and only responding to attacks. Fignon made the same criticisms in his autobiography. And in any event, Hinault probably knew of no other way to race, but to attack. Maybe in his heart of hearts he really believes his standard line that they were designed to "help" LeMond win. Although, when you find yourself in better shape than you expected to be in, and are in a position to pass Anquetil and Eddy on the all time list, you have to think that he was trying to win despite what he promised the year before.