What was missing (and thankfully so) were doping scandals and crazy accusations about dopers. There was nothing, nada, zip, zero – not a peep. Many of the pro teams believe the bio passports are working. It’s common knowledge that race officials are testing more often and so are the teams. For example, Astana budgeted almost $700,000 to test its team members for the 2009 race year. Other teams have followed and sponsors are sleeping a bit better.

While Levi was out of the race early due to a broken hand, the final standings were very close to what I predicted two weeks ago. Had Levi been in the mix, I believe the Schleck brothers might have fared a bit differently. As evident with a third place finish it is obvious that Lance Armstrong is STILL ‘tha man.’

Think about it: he left the sport of bicycle racing on top of the charts, and four years later he re-enters it by snagging a podium spot his first year back.  For those that watched the race-action closely the last three weeks, Lance was clearly capable of dealing out the “see ya later” look when and where needed, but he raced for the team – led the team – and held it together to end as a team.

News reporters are already talking about the 2010 race. Lance will race for a different team and so will Contador. Lance has several advantages over Contador, but one significant advantage that is worth mentioning. Lance is smarter and a true team leader. In 2010, the unique combination of race knowledge and the ability to lead make him (Lance) a definite favorite.

Okay then. Ride oneth.

As I stated yesterday – as was born today – Contador will win the 2009 Tour de France and Lance will finish second with Levi in third place. There is no doubt that the Team Astana, banned from the 2008 Tour, will rise like the Phoenix to surface as the come-back kid of cycling. My only hope is that Contador can keep his legs from running his mouth and that Team Astana stay just that – a team. Again, ride oneth because Saturday isn’t a cake walk my friends. I do believe you’ll see some break-away riders who are “let go” as they are not in contention with the leaders. Afterall, Stage 8 (even with two Cat 1 climbs and a Cat 2 climb) includes a lot of technical downhill shiznet. This plays very well to terffic bike handlers like Lance.

My prediction is that Contador will stand tall as the winner of the 2009 Tour with Lance and Levi along side. Lance in second place and Levi in third place. And for once in history, a single team will be talked about as a team.

Go f’ing figure that it took an American to put “team” into a sport that’s been dominated by the words “I, me, mine, I” – which isn’t surprising to those who understand it’s a FRENCH race. The press continues with its onslaught of crappy-crap related to “who is the leader of Astana.” All the while Lance is out front hedging Astana’s bets of remaining calm in the midst of an all-out racing war.

The FRENCH believe that the strongest man is the leader, and leadership can change during the race depending on who is strongest. It’s a warped philosophy that, in my opinion, has kept the FRENCH from winning its share of the Tours the past two decades.  The American bicycle racing philosophy, on the other hand, is 180 degrees away from “I, me, mine, I.” Our philosophy and working model doesn’t originate around the “strongest” – it originates around the person most capable of leading. Typically it is the person with the wisdom to lead and the common sense to follow when required.

When the difficult climbs come, you’ll see him (Lance) follow, or set tempo and win. But Lance cannot climb with Contador every day. Yes, if we backed up five years, Lance would/could do it. But it’s 2009 and Contador has more current racing miles in his legs than Lance. The other factor is age. Like it or not, there is a 10-year age difference between the two. And you can bet that a decade makes a huge difference in what the human engine can produce. OK then. Even with the differences, Lance Armstrong is the leader of Astana. Fact.

Love him, like him or hate him – Lance IS the leader. I would add, however, that every man on the squad is leading in some form or fashion.

The standings today attest to one other significant point: when a team acts like a team it dominates like a team. Four of the top 10 cyclists thus far are from one team: Astana. In my mind they’ve already won the greatest bike race – or the greatest test of man’s endurance – on earth.

Ride oneth.

It’s relatively easy to climb (via bicycle) the roads in the Pyrenees or in the Alps. Riding up is relatively easy. The difficulty of climbing is exponentially elevated by the riders who push (and pull) hard on their pedals. Thus, pace is what makes climbing difficult. It’s the high, average mph – and certainly multiple accelerations along the way. Dare not think it’s easy. It just looks easy.

It’s inspiring. Even with the issues over doping, the Tour is powerfully inspiring. You realize that the feat these men perform is completely beyond the grasp of ordinary mortals. It’s almost like studying theology. You need to attain the first degree of initiation to understand that you don’t understand anything.

The wittiest comments ever written about the Tour were by the young Roland Barthes, and it’s no accident that he developed a real theology of cycling. In his essay about the epic known as the Tour de France, there is a passage in which he describes Mont Ventoux as one would describe an evil deity, one that demands sacrifice. Barthes equates the heroes of cycling with Homer’s warriors in the Iliad. As far as he is concerned, the original duel, between Hector and Achilles, is repeated among the riders on the mountain. Anyone can fight on flat stretches, but those who remain capable of fighting a duel on the worst of mountains already deserves to be called Hector or Achilles.

Just keep an eye out for Didi. He’s part of the lore we call the Tour de France. Race on.

The efforts by climbers (or any rider for that matter) in the Tour goes mostly unnoticed. It’s difficult to detect the real effort going on when they climb steep Cols. The fact is, they do make it look effortless. But what’s going inside their minds and bodies is – well – beyond what I can comprehend.

Suffering includes climbing some of the highest paved roads in the Alps and Pyrenees and covering inhumane distances under the summer sun. Many will crash and push on despite being covered in road rash. At night, their leg muscles will be so tired that it will be painful to climb the stairs in their hotels. To suffer is the currency of racing. To a Tour rider it means willing to risk life over and over. These are just simple rules of the game.

Glory and pain – the synonymous symbols of the Tour de France.

One of the most frequently asked questions is how do the organizers determine the ratings for the climbs in the Tour de France.The Tour organizers use two criteria 1) the length and steepness of the climb and 2) the position of the climb in the stage. A third, and much lesser criteria, is the quality of the road surface.It is important to note several things before this discussion begins.First, the organizers of the Tour have been very erratic in their classifications of climbs. The north side of the Col de la Madeleine has flip-flopped between a 1st Category to an Hors Category climb,even though it seems to be in the same position of a stage every year.Secondly, rating inflation, so rampant in other sports has raised its ugly head here. Climbs that used to be a 2nd Category are now a1st Category, even though, like the Madeleine, they occupy the same position in a stage year after year.

Let’s talk about the ratings. I will give you my impressions on what I think the criteria are for rating the climbs based on having ridden over 100 of the rated climbs in the major European tours. Note that gradual climbs do not receive grades. It has been my observation that about a 3-4% grade is necessary for a climb to get rated. Also, a climb must gain at least 70m for it to be rated.

The organizers of the Tour de France also claim that the quality of the road surface can influence the rating of a climb. If the surface is very poor, like some of the more obscure climbs in the Pyrenees,then the rating may be bumped up.4th Category – the lowest category, climbs of 200-500 feet (70-150m). 3rd Category – climbs of 500-1600 feet (150-500m). 2nd Category – climbs of 1600-2700 ft. ( 500-800m) 1st Category – climbs of 2700-5000ft(800-1500m) Hors Category – the hardest, climbs of 5000ft+(1500m+)

Points awarded for the climbs ranges are as follows (from the 1990 race bible):4th Category: 3 places: 5, 3, 13rd Category: 5 places: 10, 7, 5, 3, 12nd Category: 10 places: 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 11st Category: 12 places: 30, 26, 22, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1Hors Category: 15 places: 40, 35, 30, 26, 22, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1

Steepness also plays a factor in the rating. Most of the big climbsin the Alps average 7-8% where the big climbs in the Pyrenees average8-9%.

Please remember that I am giving very, very rough guidelines and there are exceptions to every rule. For example, L’Alpe D’Huezclimbs 3700ft(1200m), but is an Hors Category climb. This is becauseit usually comes at the end of a very tough stage and the climb itselfis unusually steep(~9%) by Alpine standards.

More confusing is the Col de Borderes, a mere 1000ft (300m) climb outside of Arrens in the Pyrenees mountains. I have seen it rated anywhere from a 3rd Category to a 1st Category !!! This is most likely due again, to its placement on the stage. The 3rd Category rating came when it was near the beginning of a stage where its 1st Category rating came when it was near the end.

Flat or downhill sections can also affect a climb’s rating. Such sections offer a rest to the weary and can reduce the difficulty of the climb considerably. This may be one of the reasons that the aforementioned Col de la Madeleine, which has a 1 mile downhill/flat section at mid-height,flip-flops in its rating.

People often asked how climbs in the United States compare to those in Europe. Most of the US climbs are either steep enough by European standards(6-8% grade), but are short(5-10km) so they fall into the3rd Category or 2nd possibly; or the climbs gain enough altitude, but are too long(they average <5%) so again they would fail to break the 1st Category barrier and end up most likely a 2nd or 3rd Category.Fear not, there are exceptions. Most notable to Californians is the south side of Palomar Mountain which from Pauma Valley climbs4200′ in 11 miles, a potential 1st Category ascent, though it mayfall prey to downgrading because of the flat section at mile four.The east side of Towne Pass in Death Valley is definitely a 1stCategory climb!

A popular Northern California climb, Mount Hamilton, is similar toPalomar Mountain but, fails to be a 1st Category climb because of two offending downhill section on the ascent and an overall gradient of 5%.For Coloradoans, you can thank the ski industry for creating long,but relatively gradual climbs that rarely exceed 5% for any substantial length(5+ miles). I never had to use anything bigger than a 42×23on any climb in Colorado, regardless of altitude. Gear ratios of39×24 or 26 are commonplace in the Alps and Pyrenees and give a very telling indication as to the difficulty of European climbs.

One potential 1st Category climb for Coloradoans may be the 4000 ft.climb in about 15 miles from Ouray to the top of Red Mountain Pass.Also, it should be noted that there is not a single uniform rating scheme for all the races on the UCI calendar. What one race might call a 1stCategory climb, may be called a 2nd Category climb, even though the stages of the two races are almost identical.

One last note. I think it is inappropriate to compare the ascents of climbs by the European pros with the efforts of us mere mortals.I have said this time and time again and I will repeat it now. It is very, very hard for the average person to comprehend just how fast the pros climb the big passes. Pace makes all the difference. Riding a climb is very different than racing it.