Au Revoir, Caisse d'Epargne

I don’t have time at the moment for that type of historical analysis, but I have been thinking on the lines of something like that a month or so down the line. But “Armstrong’s competition sucked” seems like a slow hanging curveball that even Mark Belanger could go deep with. Or to be less flippant, there is some truth to the phrase but the reality is much more complicated.

I remember The Team Chef noting that with his system he uses on his Virtual Musette blog to make an all-time ranking, there are fewer great riders in the last couple of decades. And there is no evidence that that trend has changed now that the Lance generation is wheezing to an end. Also there hasn’t been a real thorough analysis/understanding of why that might be. Personally I think the sport we see now is practiced under very different circumstances than it was in the 60’s or 30’s and that leads to different career totals among the greats. EPO, rider specialization, different (easier?) courses, more money, a move away from using just the proletariat, team tactics (hi Lance!), and what have you have all contributed over time to how much the great riders stand out from the peloton.

Understanding this stuff, the multiple variables, is complicated. To use another baseball analogy its like writing off the last decade or two because of steroids without also noting that ball parks became much friendlier to hitters, umpires shrank their strike zone, pitchers specialized more, etc.

Is Schleckett better than Ullrich was at the same age? I dunno. Jan would have beaten Andy in the time trials and wouldn’t just automatically hemorrhage time in the mountains. Its fun the think the GC kids coming up are special but we’ve only seen glimpses of that specialness so far.