Watching Sporza last night just to catch the next Cav interview. @Wielerman did not disappoint. I missed some parts due to my very slow internet connection, but it went something like this:

Wielerman: Quite a controversy about the intermediate sprint yesterday

Cav: [Silence]…

Wielerman: Eh, Thor Hushovd said that if anything was wrong he will accept the penalty but it should not be you.

Cav: [Silence] …

Wielerman: No comment?

Cav: Well, you’re not asking a question, are you? You’re making a statement, so there is nothing for me to answer.

Wielerman: [Silence] … OK, so if I ask you a question, would you answer?

That was the comedy part of the exchange. Just on the off-chance you’re also interested in the actual question that got an actual answer, it finally went something like this:

Wielerman: You and Thor were disqualified, describe what happened?

Cav: I don’t know what happened, I really don’t. I would like the commissaires to make a video for me to show what I did wrong and what I should have done instead. I just don’t know, what should I do to keep my line and avoid crashing? I honestly don’t know, I don’t know what I did wrong and I don’t know what I should do differently. I really don’t. Can they please explain it?

In the studio they speculated that it may have been a case of the commissaires “warning” everybody that they would be strict this year. Maybe that was necessary given some of the antics last year, but you’d better pick a REAL issue to use as a warning, not a fake one like this sprint. Because now everybody is talking about how incomprehensible the call was, not about how to sprint in relative safety (if there is such a thing).

• Fact: In 2008, Mark Cavendish did not win until stage 5
• Fact: In 2010, Mark Cavendish did not win until stage 5

Scoreboard journalism means basing your judgement solely on the outcome of a race or game rather than the processes within.

Cavendish doesn’t win the sprint of stage 3, so he’s considered “not in form”. But if you’re going to engage in scoreboard journalism, at least look at the right scoreboard. I would suggest it’s the one I wrote above. Better still, forget the scoreboard, look at the process, and you’ll see that yesterday he came from nowhere to finish 5th. He probably had the fastest final 100m of any rider. So opponents beware.

More bad news for the competition, it seems that Cavendish is already getting fed up with all the arm chair experts. His “interview” with Belgian TV yesterday was rather telling:

Q: “Mark, can you take us through the roles for all your teammates in the lead-out train”

A: “They all ride in one line to the finish full gas”

Q: “But the individual roles, for example what will Eisel do”

A: “Yeah, he is one of them”

Q: “Who are your biggest opponents”

A: “We only look at ourselves” (for comedic effect, it would be perfect had he said “Hushovd is 1 meter 90 I think”)

It was actually really funny, though the commentators couldn’t make much of it. But a fed up Cav also means he needs an outlet for an X-rated victory salute or just to show the critics who’s right. So look out (except if you’re a commissaire, then you may want to look the other way).

How many stages do you think the various sprinters will win, and who will take home the green jersey? LEt me know in the comments section or via twitter @gerardvroomen.

From the legal department: I had no actual journalist in mind while writing any of the above, I love you all. And no sprinters were hurt in the making of this blog.

Now, first off, there was no reason not to take advantage of the crash on Saturday. That’s part of racing, everybody knows crashes happen. Staying in the front is part of the job in the first week of the Tour if you want to win the overall.

Yet it is a little surprising that some of the riders who after “Chaingate” claimed they would slow down if their arch rival encountered a calamity couldn’t wait to get their teammates to the front to distance Contador. It’s a lot easier to be generous in theory than in practice.

It fits right into my concept from last year that anybody is willing to be magnanimous when they know it won’t affect the outcome. Win the Tour AND look like a gentleman, that’s the ultimate.But if one of the two has to be sacrificed, it’s exit Gentleman. And why not, it’s not a butlering contest. Just don’t bore us with the “I wouldn’t have done that” crap.

Ultimately this is good news for Contador. First off, it shows he is no worse than other riders for not waiting last year (I should specify “during Chaingate”, as he did wait for Schleck during “Slipperyroadgate” on stage 2, which was also explained through last year’s concept). And secondly, if his opponents were convinced they could beat him in a straight-up fight, they wouldn’t have needed their helpers to put time into him on Saturday. So the team leaders have voted, and they think it will take a calamity to keep Contador from winning this year.

[Thanks to spanielsson for the comment that gave the inspiration for this post]

For weeks volumes are written and Gigabytes are filled with analysis on what will happen in the Tour. Now thanks to one douchebag spectator, all that can go in the trash. I love it. So I will repeat what I have said earlier on twitter and in the comments section of this blog: Talk about Contador and Schleck finishing 1-2 (in whatever order) and the rest fighting for 3rd are premature. Those two will NOT finish 1-2.

My prediction last week was not borne out of some incredible insight into relative fitness or ability, but just the odds that something unexpected will happen. Cycling is dangerous, especially in a peloton with 200 fresh riders crashes will happen and they will affect the outcome. For the Amstel Gold Race this year I predicted one of two riders would crash, and I caught a lot of flak for wishing ill on them. But I wish none of the riders any ill, it’s just an inevitable part of the sport. And coincidentally, I was right.

But don’t think just about crashes; mechanicals, fitness, illness, hunger knocks, a lousy hotel the night before the key stage, any of this can affect the outcome.

That’s also the reason why my prediction didn’t include WHO would swoop into the top-2, as that is far too difficult to predict. Evans may seem a likely candidate, especially after yesterday, but there are still 20 days left and his track record when it comes to luck in the Tour isn’t great. So let’s hope for the best.

P.S. My usual Tim Krabbé Zoetemelk clause applies to the above prediction.

Is it just me, or is it difficult to get excited about this year’s Tour? I am not totally sure why I feel that way, but maybe it’s just tough to mentally commit to a race for three weeks and possibly not know in the end who has won. I had a similar feeling at the Giro, and although some stages were definitely spectacular and I enjoyed watching them, the fight for pink was just a non-event for me. Partially that may have been caused by Contador’s dominance, but mostly it’s the uncertainty over what decision the CAS will take in the end.

In fact, a half-doping case like we have now in cycling may be much more damaging than a full-blown case. At least when a rider is awaiting a first decision or serving his sentence, he is out of the spotlight. Even if he gets some attention, the sport can point at him and say “look, he cheated, we caught him, have dealt with him and we’re serious about it”. It’s a chance to highlight the fight against doping. In the current case, the embarrassment is multiplied and the response has to be very meek, all about respecting the process and nothing about anti-doping measures. They can’t even say the “process is working”.

Maybe once the race gets underway, I’ll get sucked in anyway. Are you excited about this Tour? Let me know in the comments section or on twitter @gerardvroomen

Aggressiveness: Champions seem to be aggressive. Strong moves are indicative of the outstanding athlete. Yet the moves – whether made by design or by instinct – are not made frivolously but rather only at times when their chances can be greatly enhanced by such a maneuver.

In Friday’s blog I mentioned the 11 traits of being a champion as used by Toby Stanton, which he sent me after my Vettel blog. Here’s the second trait on his list:

Self-Assured: Champions, the really great ones, never really boast. They have a quiet self-assuredness that transcends talk, and they seldom distract themselves with such foolishness.

I think my list of “really great champions” just shrunk. How about yours? Use the comments section or twitter to let me know.

Toby Stanton is the man behind the amazing Hottubes Junior development team (he simply gets on with the task of changing future cycling stars for the better rather than sit around and complain. Follow him @hottubes).

After I had posted “The Calm of Champions”, Toby sent me “11 Traits to being a champion”, a one-pager that he gives to every rider who joins his team. He hurried to tell me the original was not his, but he can’t remember whose it is. He did modify and update it to align it better with what he tries to teach his juniors. Here’s how it starts:

11 Traits to being a champion

1) Calmness: Champions demonstrate a stoic calmness that allows them to focus on the task at hand. No prima donna outbursts or ridiculous demands on friends or trainers. Just calm commitment.