I was thinking about what the pundits are saying about Heras
and I think some of the criticism is not realistic. What
they talk about are his performances in the most recent
Tours even though he prepared and road as a mountain support
rider. While last year was his weakest, it was also known
that he had been ill. Comparing subsequent Vuealta
performances is also misleading because again, he had to
prepare for the Tour as a support rider as his first
priority (at least he had to race and train that way
regardless of which was more important to him).
I don't see any really positive data on Heras other than
the fact that he has been the team leader the entire year
and followed a Tour leader's program and hit his top form
precisely when he said he would. I think he has a bit
better chances than are currently discussed. The course is
probably the worst for him in all the years he has raced
it, but it may be a course where a guy like Saiz can come
up with a winning strategy. It also may turn out to be the
worst course for ITT specialists so, if seems to boil down
to minimizing losses until the uphill ITT and then the one
huge mountain stage. All of the contenders have had bad
days in the Tour on stages such as this (Armstrong in 2000,
Ullrich in 1998) although Armstrong has always had enough
in keep the lead during his jour sans and limited the
damage very well.
Manolo looks stupid at times but maybe he just never had a
rider that could finish as strongly as was needed. Both
Heras and Saiz may have learned from past mistakes and now
we will hopefully see the full potential of Roberto Heras.
The excitement from this Tour comes from the strongest field
of GC contenders in many years, the fact that winning a
sixth has never been possible and therefore does not really
favor the incumbent. After the variables by the fairly
radical course (for a TDF anyway) it should be a great 3
weeks no matter who wins. I hope LA learns a bit more
respect for his opponents (by not offering insulting excuses
for poor daily performances) and keeps his anger about the
book targeted solely at those that are accountable for its
existence (including himself perhaps? I'll wait for stronger
evidence before I start giving the book any credence).