In cycling as in investing, successes from the past are no guarantee for the future. But they aren’t completely meaningless either. So what do the performances of the past few weeks tell us for this weekend? Since few media ever bother to preview the women’s race, I thought I’d do that first. So today the women’s race, tomorrow the men’s.

First off, since many of the top women road racers also do the time trial (much more so than on the men’s side), Tuesday’s TT tells us quite a bit. Arndt was superstrong, and likely will be able to translate that to the road race. That could see her in a small break and if everything is still together, the Germans have a super-impressive lead-out for Ina Yoko Teutenberg (they also have for example Charlotte Becker for that). Since Teutenberg, Becker and Arndt have ridden together the entire season at HTC, not just in the national team, this is a difficult nut to crack.

One country that could possibly break the German dominance is Great Britain. Emma Pooley’s third place finish at the TT has not gotten the credit it deserves, as given the circumstances (dead flat, strong winds) it was the stand-out performance of the day. Many may view the defending champion finishing third as a disappointment, but when Marianne Vos complains that she was too light to perform on that course in that wind and Emma, who was the smallest contender in the TT by a country mile, finishes third, that’s a good indication she’s on form. Add to that her win in the Tour de l’Ardeche and it’s clear she’s ready.

Expect Emma to place one of her trademark solo attacks. And while the other teams work to bring her back, fast finishers Nicole Cooke and Lizzie Armistead can relax. The Germans may have trouble controlling the race if Nicole Cooke is on form and tries something in the closing kilometers, especially if the field is thinned out considerably by then. But how well Cooke’s form is is anybody’s guess.

The Americans disappointed on the TT, which after the bickering about who should be allowed to race was hardly a surprise. It’s hard to see how they can do better in the road race, as team work will be extremely important on this course. Their continent-counterparts from Canada performed extremely well in the TT, but both Whitten and Hughes are true TT specialists (not surprising given their backgrounds of track cycling and speed skating).

But don’t forget that Clara Hughes was a very successful cyclist BEFORE she was a very successful speed skater. She already medalled at the Atlanta Olympics. The only person Clara can outsprint is probably Andy Schleck, so she’ll need to think of something special. On this course, that may be a long shot.

On the other end of the fast-twitch-fiber-spectrum we have Italy. With Bronzini as their top sprinter and young Elena Cecchini quickly climbing the ranks, they could spell trouble for Teutenberg and Armistead. Whether they will ride as a team is the perennial question. Emilia Fahlin is also among the faster finishers, plus she has good endurance and TT skills. She could launch an attach with 50, 5 or 0.5k to go, or rely on her sprint. She’s won stages in the Tour de l’Ardeche recently, so she’s definitely on form.

The great thing about women’s cycling is its unpredictability. Above we have a dozen or so contenders, and we haven’t even discussed the woman who has won everything this year: Marianne Vos (everything except that TT on Tuesday of course). Vos has finished second in the World Championship Road Race for the past four years. Imagine that, Silver four years in a row.

She definitely doesn’t want to win another Silver, and somehow I doubt taking the Bronze is the solution she came up with. So expect a very motivated Vos. Maybe the season is too long, maybe the TT indicated she’s not on top form, but only a fool would write her off. Like Fahlin, she can win any which way she wants, but unlike Fahlin, she’s done so many, many times at the absolute highest level of the sport.

While everybody may be watching Vos’ orange jersey, it’s the orange of VanVleuten that should not be ignored. She’s really broken through this year and proven she is a force to be reckoned with in the one-day races. Fahlin also has a countrywoman to be reckoned with in Emma Johansson (thanks to @Campy007 for pointing out my failure to mention her).

Even if you don’t normally follow cycling, pick your favorite and watch it. This course in Copenhagen may very well make for a better women’s than men’s race. And with most countries having two contenders with very different skills, the tactics are bound to become a difficult puzzle to solve.

I’m merged out for the moment. And although there are plenty of other cycling dignitaries making outrageous comments which deserve some scrutiny this week, I decided instead to end the week on a high-note. So here we go, trait 8 of champions from my good friend Toby Stanton (@Hottubes):

Consistency: Champions seem to demonstrate a great deal of consistency, both in temperament and performance.

Self-direction: This does not mean the champion is self-coached or self-centered, but rather that the champion knows where he or she is going and will use the best available means at their disposal to achieve that end.

Patience: Part of being a champion is the realization that patience is an integral part of success. Patience is not just a trait, it is a tool that a champion uses to a definite advantage.

Not afraid to fail: To a degree, we are all afraid to fail. The champion seems to be willing to risk it in spite of the possibility of catastrophe.

Yesterday I tweeted that I thought the Tour had many great moments but it wasn’t a great Tour. Almost every individual stage was exciting, but they didn’t string together into a 3 week battle for yellow. That was reserved just for the last week.

Reactions came in thick and fast. Many thought it was the best Tour in ages, others commented that Evans didn’t win it in an exciting way. Counter to what you may expect based on my tweet, I actually expect with the first and disagree with the second.

It WAS the most exciting Tour in years. We’ve had too many Tours in the last 20 years that were decided after one week, so it’s exciting when it goes down to the wire. Last years did too, but Andy Schleck and Contador were so far beyond the rest that spectators were left wanting. 2008, 2006 and 2003 also had close finishes. So to me it was definitely not a bad Tour, I thought it was very good, but memories of the late 80′s where the yellow went back and forth between contenders keeps me from calling 2011 great.

However, I do think Evans won it in a great way. He gets criticized for not attacking enough, but I think that’s unfair. First off, he does attack. It’s true he doesn’t do 20 short bursts like some others, but when you think about it, you only need to do that if your first 19 attacks don’t stick. When Evans goes, he makes sure it matters.

Comments that he didn’t go on long attacks in the mountains, that he didn’t win the way Contador or Schleck would win it, sound silly to me. Beautiful sports is when somebody maximizes his potential, which means Evans winning it the way Evans should win it.

He may not have had a very attacking Tour, but he’s had a very active Tour. When one opponent exposed Contador’s weakness, he exploited it. When another exposed Andy Schleck’s weakness, he exploited that. Those he couldn’t distance in the mountains, he disposed of in what everybody saw coming, the final TT.

Evans made the most of his own abilities, some of his opponents did not. That’s not good riding, that’s great riding.

My one disappointment is that I would have loved to see what Wiggins could have done, a rider with his style could have made GC extra interesting.

What do you think of this Tour?

You’ve seen it all before: One team at the front in a mountain stage, keeping the pace high while the pack behind them is reduced to the 30-40 strongest in the race. Then the team leader places his decisive move on the final climb and wins.

HOWEVER: Which team is the team leader on? Does the work from the team increase the chances of their own leader of his competition? The speed is the same for everybody, does it matter if the pace is set by a guy in a blue or a red jersey? Cycling seems to believe it does, and obviously all the years that the team was Postal/Discovery and the team leader was Lance, it would seem to be the case. But does anybody really believe Lance rode away from his rivals because it was his teammates setting the tempo instead of Ulrich’s teammates?

The Tour de Suisse 2011 saw Leopard setting tempo “Postal-style” perfectly putting Frank Schleck in position with 5km to go. Then all his rivals proceeded to ride away from him. To Plateau de Beille, Leopard once again set the pace, and once again nothing happened on the climb. And why would it? While Andy sits comfortably at the end of his train, Contador sits comfortably behind him.

If you’re having a really lousy day, having your team set a tempo you can deal with, while dissuading another team from setting a higher tempo would be a good idea. But “making the race hard for others” also makes it hard for yourself and is hardly a tactic. This fact remains intact even if one of these stages a team sets tempo and their leader wins. Wasting your team like that doesn’t help, but it doesn’t prevent you from making a winning move either.

Note: I wrote this on Tuesday, so who knows what happened in the Alps. But it doesn’t matter, the facts remain even if somebody by chance “finishes off the beautiful work by his team”.

Note: I wrote this yesterday before Contador lit up the stage to Gap. I see no reason (and have no time as I am traveling to France today) to change it, although my realistic #3 seems less realistic now:

Before the Tour I predicted that Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador would NOT finish 1st and 2nd (in whatever order). I stand by that prediction. So how about a top-3 at this stage of the game? Well, since crashes, etc become a bit less likely now that the peloton is getting tired (strange really, that fatigue makes it safer), I have two top-3s.

My dream Top-3 mixed with some bits of reality would be:

1. Voeckler
2. Danielson
3. Taaramae (always thought he was a cool rider)

But it would take 8 people falling out of the top-10 to make that happen, which may be a stretch. Thinking about what will really happen, it might be closer to this:

1. Contador
2. Evans
3. Andy Schleck

The reason I think Contador will win is that he should get in better shape as he continues to recover from the first week spills (if that is really what has been holding him back), and he can deliver a flawless time trial. At the same time, many of his rivals have a proven ability to fluff the time trial when it really matters. The real dark horse is of course Voeckler, and I do think he actually has a chance to finish on the podium instead of Andy Schleck. It would be good for the sport. As usual, the Zoetemelk clause for predictions applies.