I have been sitting on this post for awhile.  Waiting to post it for a few days, struggling with finding a clear message in all of it.  It started it after watching the Ventoux stage and talking about the weird tactics but was really spurred by reading an article in the Wall Street Journal.  I like reading the WSJ, the writing is generally above the quality of our local paper & I do like to read non-cycling publications’ view of cycling as sport.  So when I see a column called ‘The Count’ with the heading, ‘Contador’s Other Quest: Best Climber Ever’, written by Reed Albergotti.  This short column basically says, statistically, AC is the best climber in the Tour ever because of the Vertical Meters Ascended ratio of 6,116 (feet:hour- converted) up the Verbier climb.  This betters numbers of:

Riis- Hautacam ‘96 @ 6,048

Pantani- Alpe d’Huez ‘95 @ 5,974

Leblanc- Hautacam ‘94 @ 5,914

Armstrong- Alpe d;Huez ‘04 @ 5,852

Ullrich- Alpe d’Huez ‘97 @ 5,842

He continues to speculate, AC, may be the ‘perfect cyclist to break Mayo’s record up the Ventoux of 55:51′.  We never really did find out due to the abnormal, but logical, tactics of the strongest riders in the race up that climb.  Maybe AC was trying to prove there is an ‘i’ in the word ‘Equipo’ and had no reason to ride the climb at full capacity.  The author of the WSJ article sites, Ross Tucker, a South African physiologist’s blog, “Science of Sport” as the basis for his data.  *Warning* heading to that blog may lead to the mental equivalent of a tangled ball of twine, about the case he is making for why the riders are riding at the paces recorded.  

Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusion as to why these things happen.  (Remember, the Leblanc stage  was the Indurain stage where Stuart came around only at the finish in the fog).  Then there is this article from Sports Illustrated that tries to help explain the differences in culture on the other side of the pond.  Which leads me to – nowhere.

There’s really nothing new here, but is an interesting attempt to explain two separate but related topics, well worth the time to read.

Some say this Tour was Hinault/Lemond ‘86 all over again- but there are others that will say it is more Visentini/Roche Giro ‘87.  That’s probably a little better analogy, but the drama that has followed is really pretty silly.

In the end of all this, I still have no clear message other than the part I found most compelling about this Tour were the Cavendish finishes, yet a cheeky Hoshovd winning the Green Jersey.  I look forward to getting a John’s eye view of it from JG when he gets back.