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).